| Revision as of 01:21, 3 November 2006 editDonnachadelong (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,812 edits →LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:24, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,169 edits Assessment: banner shell, Alternative views, Politics, +Human rights (High) (Rater) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{sprotected}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader|search=no}} |
|
{{Philosophy}} |
|
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{controversial (politics)}} |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{FACfailed|Archived nominations/Index/June 2003 to January 2004#Anarchism}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Round In Circles}} |
|
|
|
|collapse=yes |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=21:45, 1 Mar 2004 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2003 to January 2004#Anarchism |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=2588948 |
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|
|action2date=01:40, 21 March 2007 |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Anarchism/Archive 49#Good article nomination |
|
|
|action2result=not listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=116671833 |
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|
|action3date=13:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link=Talk:Anarchism/GA1 |
|
|
|action3result=listed |
|
|
|action3oldid=339336764 |
|
|
|topic=socsci |
|
|
|currentstatus=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anarchism}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|social-and-political=yes|modern=yes|contemporary=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 |
|
|
| date = 18 July 2013 |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = 18 July 2013 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |
|
|
|collapsed=yes |
|
|
| |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{caution|image=Start hand.svg|'''Note:''' This talkpage is for ] to the ] article. '''Questions''' about anarchism should be addressed to the ]. Issues regarding the '''coverage''' of Anarchism on Misplaced Pages should be raised on the ] ''']'''.}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Anarchism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 68 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Disambiguation instead of division == |
|
*Posts from Sept. 13 to Sept. 26 are now at ]. ] 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Posts from 2006-09-27 to 2006-10-06 are now at ]. -- ]''']''' 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After having been an anarchist for 40 years, I personally think that the entire article on anarchism is rubbish. One example: I do not see myself as left-wing. That would mean that I would be part of their parliament. We are anti-political, so which idiot describes us as a left-wing political current? The article should have a short - extremely - general paragraph describing the general idea of anarchism and then it should sum up the different currents of anarchism as they are divided in internationals: individualists, anarcho-syndicalists, platformists. The articles on these currents should also be short and general and should just sum up the different versions of individualism etc. That way - at least - there would be a general definition that every anarchist could live with and it would keep all philosophical discussions to a minimum. Underneath every current, there could be further disambiguation until all currents are happy with the description of what they think anarchism should be. ] (]) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== de Cleyre == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, unfortunately Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia based on ] (in theory, anyways), not the self-opinions of the people being written about. Start a ] or something. <big>]]</big> 07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
she was an individualist first, then under the influence of socialists like emma goldman adopted a more collectivist viewpoint about the same time she began identifying herself as an anarchist-without-adjectives. this is borne out by her own writings and by academia. |
|
|
|
:{{reply to|Jan De Neys}} You may try ] and ]. ] ]<sup> ''], ]''</sup> 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
In a 1894 article defending Emma Goldman, she states, "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist." Conversely, in a 1911 article entitled "The Mexican Revolution" she wrote that "The communistic customs of these people are very interesting and very instructive too...," in regards to Mexican Indian revolutionaries. Similarly, she instructs in "Why I am an Anarchist," that "the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry to get rid of money altogether . . . Let them produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternise group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises." That is socialism Debridee. In 1912, of the paris commune she wrote, "making war upon the State, she had not made war upon which creates the State . . . the Commune respected property . . . had left common resources in private hands . . In short, though there were other reasons why the Commune fell, the chief one was that . . . the Communards were not Communists. They attempted to break political chains without breaking economic ones." That shows that in 1912 she identified with socialism. Lastly, imagination debridee, i suspect that you are another thewolfstar clone. ] 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] Jan de Neys is perfectly demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy of anarchism. ] (]) 08:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Of course Imagine Debridee is a wolfstar sock. It goes without saying (yet we're saying it). ]] 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::{{ping|146.200.132.123}} Note this is the talk page, ]. ] ]<sup> ''], ]''</sup> 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:All fine and well, just find (reputable) sources that support your claim. If different sources say different things, it can be added as well. ] 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:To the extent that ''left'' and ''right'' have any coherent meaning over the centuries, it seems to me, ''left'' is for some kind of equality and ''right'' is for some kind of stability. Anarchism seeks to abolish the privileges of the political class, so I reckon it belongs on the left. ] (]) 22:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Uhh, those are reputable sources my friend. her own writings. she changed throughout her life as people have a tendancy to do. ] 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure, but you try to synthesize her ideas by your own reading. You need a secondary source first, before you can give an example of de Cleyre's own words. ] 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Then find a secondary source that says she wasn't a socialist. ]] 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think it's fine the way it is now. It's written in an unbiased way. And she did indeed change her ideas over her lifetime. Her ideas were sometimes somewhat individualist and somewhat socialist. To call her a socialist, though, is incorrect, as this quote "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism" clearly shows. I do think that the current version is the best and not biased in any direction. I don't know what you mean by a wolfstar sock, however..?? ] 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well whoever you are i am glad someone finely added a section on anarchism-w/o-adjectives. i would've myself but since i adhere to that philosophy i thought it might be inappropriate or biased to insert it into the article. i too like the section as it stands now. as to the qoute you note above i think we would have to know when de cleyre wrote it to understand it in the context of her transitive beliefs but my VDC reader is at home so i can't check it. her later writings tend to reflect a collectivist/socialist tendency but i think her personal beliefs were somewhat a synthesis of socialist and individualist anarchism. that would be a good sentence for the section but i've never seen a secondary source arguing it. i think her views never reached their full maturity as she died rather young. ] 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thanks. I'm glad that I was able to contribute something to this article that is productive. I also am an 'Anarchist without adjectives'. I didn't know it was wrong to add text to an article that coincides with one's beliefs, though obviously it would be wrong if it included unsound or biased material. ] 19:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Against all forms of authority? == |
|
== Anarchism without adjectives: anti-capitalist or not? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi friends |
|
Did any self-proclaimed "anarchist without adjectives" tolerate capitalism? I ask because of ] last edit: -- ] 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The introduction currently claims that anarchism is against all forms of authority. But what about the ]? |
|
:A prominent anarchist w/o adj, Voltairine de Cleyre, said, "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; '''I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should'''." Further, one of the most important concepts behind this movement is that it had an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools and it focused on harmony between the various factions. ] was an attempt to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that '''anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone-even in theory.''' ] 22:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mean to sound like a pedant, but I'm worried that people will only skim the intro and leave with some misunderstandings of anarchism. |
|
::I'm actually familiar with that quote, but supporting trade and private property is not tantamount to supporting ]: take ], for example. Anarchists without adjectives "tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools", as you said. But did early anarchists without adjectives believe that capitalism was a school of anarchism, or even compatible with anarchism? Unless you provide reliable sources to convince me otherwise, I'll have to side with logic and say no. -- ] 23:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Capitalism" is state capitalism, not "anarcho-capitalism." They're two different things. ] 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If this is the case, then all anarchists, including anarcho-capitalists, are anti-capitalist, and there is no debate. But this distinction really only pushes the definitional conflict elsewhere. Someone like Tucker would have said that all capitalism was state capitalism, as the only capitalism that has ever existed depended for its creation on conditions imposed by the state. Free markets might be possible once the state was removed, but they would not be capitalist. Since there does not appear to be any consensus in an-cap circles about the relation between actually-existing capitalism and the purified anarcho-capitalism to come, the distinction doesn't appear to be particularly valid, even if it was useful. ] 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Why would free markets not be capitalist? How are you defining capitalism?] 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::When you are looking for the difference between individualist anarchist and mutualists, on the one hand, and many anarcho-capitalists, on the other, this is probably the ''single most important distinction to understand''. Forget the LTV and whether or not people call themselves "socialist." In comparison, those are just distractions. Either ''capitalism'' is the system that has existed widely, or it is a largely unproven, abstract system, found mostly in dictionaries and in local exchange relations that, with regard to most of the economic activity on the planet, might be rightly considered ''counter-economic''. If you want ''capitalism'' to mean both things, then you must think that current conditions are pretty much ok, that current markets are really pretty "free," etc. Historical capitalism has grown up with the state, and has depended on the state for support. Historical capitalism depends precisely on elevating the power of ''capital'' over that of labor, or of talent. Historical capitalism is what anarchists opposed when they sought solutions to "the social problem," etc. Genuinely free markets would look very different from historical capitalism. Some of the splits among market anarchists come from debates over whether improved laissez faire is sufficient to create really free markets, but, apart from some an-caps (who refuse to clarify whether they are defending the status quo or promoting a capitalism-to-come), I don't known, of know of, any market anarchists who are not opposed to historical capitalism. ] 20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::So we're speaking a different language. What you are calling "historical capitalism," I, including a lot of people in the mainstream, call a "mixed economy" - a mix of free market and state intervention. It sounds like you may be using Kevin Carson's definition, which is totally perverse and anachronistic. Today, capitalism is defined as laissez-faire. A laissez-faire system of owning and trading private property is by definition capitalism.] 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"Today, capitalism is defined as..." Blah. Blah. ''Today'', as the ] entry suggests, capitalism is defined in so many ways that "he concept of capitalism has limited analytic value." The definition you attribute to Carson is the definition used by virtually all of the individualist and mutualist anarchists. ] 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::No it's not. It's not used by anarcho-capitalists. Most individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. They individualist anarchists you're talking about are the few who are isolating themselves as dinosaurs, for who knows what reason. They should use the normal definition of capitalism, which is the one in today's dictionaries which define it as a private laissez-faire system. If you're going to say that a free market wouldn't result in capitalism, then you at least tell others what you mean by "capitalism" because it's apparently not consistent with the modern english language.] 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::http://en.wikiquote.org/Definitions_of_capitalism ... First of all, theres so many different definitions, theres not only one accepted definition of capitalism today as you wrote earlier. If you continue using that argument, youre just lying or at least chosing to forget facts that go against your conclusions... Just so you know. Secondly after all of this youre both going straigth back to the "most x are y" or "most x are z", which couldnt be more irrelevant for this encyclopedia! None of you have a clue about what youre talking about, and i guess theres not one source who's really made phonecalls to all x's! At least none of you have presented a source who does this. A compromise would be to include at least two definitions of capitalism in the anarchism article, each of them used when fit. --] 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Anarcho-capitalism has actually posited at least two different definitions of "capitalism" in this very thread. 1) ''"Capitalism" is state capitalism, not "anarcho-capitalism."'' 2) Capitalism as voluntary exchange. When you ''actually look'' in the major dictionaries, you find some amazing things. For example, the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' just says that capitalism is a system which favors capitalists. The range of usage won't justify any narrower definition. My sense, from talking with self-proclaimed an-caps for years, is that some of them are ''anti-capitalist'' in the traditional sense, in that they oppose the same things that individualist anarchists oppose, but for some reason (which probably has as much to do with bad blood between factions in the late 19th century as anything) they cling to the word ''capitalism''. Others are really half-hearted free-marketers, like the "laissez faire" apologists for exploitation and structurally unfree exchange against whom Tucker and the ''Liberty'' school positioned themselves. ] 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'll have to side with logic and say no?" Please refrain from leaving snide comments. - ] 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
I don't have an obvious suggestion to fix it, but I wanted to point it out and start some discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi @], glad to see new faces around. I get your point. But, look how it goes. Intro should reflect Main Body of the Article. Main Body of the Article should reflect the general consensus of contemporary authoritative scholars in the field. Authority of the bootmaker isn't prominent in the current anarchist literature, as I understand. Could you provide significant evidence within ]? That would do the trick. Hit me back if you got any questions. ]] 09:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::That quote from De Cleyre predates her involvement in "anarchism without adjectives", and so only confuses the issue. Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to unite anarchist thought (from individualism to communism) under a single umbrella. Essentially it tosses out the adjective so that the anarchist movement can operate co-operatively rather than competitively amongst one another. Anarcho-capitalism isn't generally considered part of that umbrella for the simple reason that the idea comes at a right angle to the aims of the anarchist movement, and accepting anarcho-capitalism as part of the movement would be counterproductive (particularly the contemporary anarchist movement, which is more often a reaction against corporate than political domination). So no, capitalism doesn't fall under "anarchist without adjectives" for the same reasons anarcho-capitalists aren't part of the anarchist movement. ] 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I don't have any, but I would also like to know if the general consensus among academics is that anarchism is opposed to all forms of authority ] (]) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:@] Authority has several definitions. One of them (according to google oxford languages thing) is {{xt|a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert.}} I believe this is the type being referred to with that, rather than the usual meaning. Does that make sense? ] ] 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It makes sense, I just think that it is a slightly misleading account of anarchism ] (]) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Contemporary anarchist thinkers== |
|
:::Since you bring up logic let's look at this logically. First, please read again what I quoted above - specifically what is in '''bold''' font. Then look at the definition of ] (from that article). |
|
|
|
Surprised to see that ] didn't make an appearance in the article, then realized that with some few exceptions (], ], even Zoe Baker in the suggested reading), there aren't many contemporary thinkers elaborated. It would be great to expand this element and point to some of the journals/etc that have been key. ] (]) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:::'''Capitalism''' is an ] in which the ] are mostly privately owned, and ] is ] in the ], ] and other ] of ] and ], for ] in a '''competitive''' ]. Capitalism is really only another word for a ] economy. We have already agreed that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, even if it is not favored by many of this article's contributor's. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Logic says that since ans w/o adj declare that '''anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone-even in theory''' that this would extend to all forms of anarchism. ] 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Anarchism without adjectives'' was a big tent, but it was also a specific movement at a specific time, with values in keeping with those of the anarchist movement of that time. This is a question for historical research, not abstract logic. If someone can dig up a self-proclaimed anarchist without adjectives who supported capitalism, that would be a start. Otherwise, what logic really tells us is that, given the almost uniformly anti-capitalist nature of the movement at the time, it's pretty likely "without adjectives" wouldn't have stretched to anarcho-capitalism, had it existed. ] 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are mistaken to refer use the past tense. There are still plenty of people who call themselves anarchists without adjectives. I'm one of them. This strain of anarchism still exists. ] 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I think that you can tell an anarchist from a non-anarchist by if they are willing to let others live with their own favored economic system. - ] 00:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Right on, Bro. Exactly. ] 00:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::"We have already agreed that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, even if it is not favored by many of this article's contributor's ." That's an oxymoron using carefully selected language. There is no agreement that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism; there is no agreement that de Cleyre advocated capitalism in any way. -- ] 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Likewise there is no agreement that de Cleyre opposed "capitalism" in any way. ] 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, there should be, as she was pretty consistent in her opposition. She speaks of "the horrible bondage of capitalism," of "the slavish conditions of capitalism," "the hells of capitalism, capitalism as "slaughter-house," etc. She writes that "...that is what capitalism has made of human well-being—a gambler's stake, no more." |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no agreement that anarcho-socialism etc are forms of anarchism. However, anarcho-capitalists don't spend much time going on about it. - ] 01:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Anarchists don't use the phrase anarcho-socialism. That's a redundant phrase because all anarchists are anti-capitalist and favor some form of socialist or cooperative economics. ] 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Rejecting capitalism doesn't mean imposing a preconceived economic plan on anyone. Rejecting capitalism doesn't mean accepting socialism. Also, you say that anarchists w/o adjectives declare that, but that's only a line you wrote, which makes it a bit awkward. I'm an anarchist without adjectives myself, and I don't agree that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. An "anarchist" who embraces capitalism is as awkward to me as one who embraces the state (not to mention that anarcho-capitalist PDAs are barely distinguishable from the state). People disagree on the precise meaning of "anarchism" so it's hard to say who fits under the rubric of "anarchist without adjectives". To me it's the fundamental opposition to systems of domination, and has nothing to do with states or the government except to the extent these systems necessarily control people. But even anarchist without adjectives can't necessarily agree on what anarchism is, fundamentally, which means it really isn't so clear cut. ] 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the proof that de Cleyre opposed capitalism, from her very beginnings. In her speech ''In Defense of Emma Goldmann'' , delivered in 1893, de Cleyre said: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
"As long as the working-people fold hands and pray the gods in Washington to give them work, so long they will not get it. So long as they tramp the streets, whose stones they lay, whose filth they clean, whose sewers they dig, yet upon which they must not stand too long lest the policeman bid them "move on"; as long as they go from factory to factory, begging for the opportunity to be a slave, receiving the insults of bosses and foremen, getting the old "no", the old shake of the head, in these factories they built, whose machines they wrought; so long as they consent to herd like cattle, in the cities, driven year after year, more and more, off the mortgaged land, the land they cleared, fertilized, cultivated, rendered of value; so long as they stand shivering, gazing thro' plate glass windows at overcoats, which they made, but cannot buy, starving in the midst of food they produced but cannot have; so long as they continue to do these things vaguely relying upon some power outside themselves, be it god, or priest, or politician, or employer, or charitable society, to remedy matters, so long deliverance will be delayed. When they conceive the possibility of a complete international federation of labor, whose constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories, all the instruments of production, issue their own certificates of exchange, and, in short, conduct their own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught--Self-Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech, (and no paper guarantee needed)." |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
Would an anarcho-capitalist support the right of the workers to recuperate the means of production, to free themselves from the "the insults of bosses and foremen", to reclaim the food that they have produced? Does the tone of this speech sound sympathetic to capitalism, to you? If you read the speech, rather than pulled out one quote out of context, you would know that de Cleyre was anti-capitalist down to the roots. -- ] 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is just your interpretation. Unless you can find a ''secondary source'' making the same interpretation, it does not mean a thing. ] 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, I agree with Intangible. And I agree with de Cleyre "to the root". Nobody hates these big monsters more than I do. Still the capitalists and corporations she was referrring to were '''state sanctioned and supported'''. Without the coddling and favoring that the current corps get it would be a hell of a lot harder for them to get themselves into a position of power. Who's to stop the forming of unions, for instance? Not the corps, surely. They would be powerless to do so. They need the workers just as much as the workers need the employment. I'm not even an an-cap. I just believe in the complete, uncompromised, freedom of all. ] 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(edit conflict) It's merely my interpretation that de Cleyre supported the right of workers to "conduct their own industry without regulative interference from law-makers '''or employers'''..."? (emphasis added) She was very explicit, as you can see. You're not going to succeed in your goal to obstruct this information by simply acting naïvely. Regardless, primary sources ''are'' ]; we therefore have legitimate evidence that the most prominent anarchist without adjectives was anti-capitalist. Yet we have not a single source to suggest that de Cleyre supported capitalism. In fact, there is still no consensus on whether or not capitalism is even compatible with anarchism. Are we to assume, considering all of this, that de Cleyre identified with capitalism? To do so defies all logic. -- ] 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm not saying that primary sources cannot be used. I'm just saying that if you use them, you cannot make a synthesis out of them. I.e. making the conclusions you make. That is ]. ] 02:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: De Cleyre was an anti-capitalst, as are all anarchists without adjectives. To suggest that she was in favor of capitalism is to live in a fantasy world. ] 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
One thing people should keep in mind here is that when the old anarchists said they opposed "capitalism" they were talking about state capitalism. They weren't talking about anarcho-capitalism. State capitalism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things. Just because an anarchists says he opposes state capitalism, it doesn't mean he/she would oppose anarcho-capitalism. Murray Rothbard opposes state capitalism too. He says it's "violent expropriation."] 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Do you have any source for your bold claim that "when the old anarchists said they opposed "capitalism" they were talking about state capitalism". When they were talking about no rulers and opposing capitalism the obvious interpretation is that they were against rulers and capitalism. Capitalism means the wages system, exploitaition, rulers, bosses and plutocracy. All incompatible with anarchism. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably a good idea, if this article says any particular anarchist opposes "capitalism" that it is stated how they define "capitalism." Otherwise, we really don't know what they mean by that.] 02:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Right. That is precisely what I was saying. Thank you. So it therefore can't be concluded that de Cleyre was against anarcho-capitalism. ] 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It can't even be concluded that she would be against "capitalism" as it is defined today, which is a free market system. The old individualist defined "capitalism" as state intervention, which is totally opposite as it's defined today.] 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"One thing people should keep in mind here is that when the old anarchists said they opposed "capitalism" they were talking about state capitalism." Your argument is ineffectual because it is based entirely on this original research of yours. Even if your premise was factual, your argument would still be futile, for de Cleyre expressly rejected the concept of ''employers'', not just capitalism. Therefore, how could she possibly have supported anarcho-capitalism, of which employers are an integral part? -- ] 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No it is not "original research." There was no such thing as anarcho-capitalism (at least it never had a name), so it definitely not be concluded that opposition to "capitalism" entails opposition to anarcho-capitalism. You're wrong that Cleyre reject the concept of employers. She said that for individualist anarchists, "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." (Voltairine de Cleyre, Loving Freedom) The problem she had with individualist anarchism, when she decided to switch to "anarchism without adjectives" is that it supports private police. But, as far as I know, when she turned to "anarchism without adjectives" she did not change her position to opposing employee/employer, because employment is voluntary. It is totally consistent with anarchism without adjectives. ] 03:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I wondered why you didn't include a source. A quick Google search reveals this: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
"As Voltairine pointed one , individualist anarchists held that the |
|
|
'essential institutions of Commercialism are in themselves good, |
|
|
and are rendered vicious merely by the interference by the State.' |
|
|
She notes that the 'extreme Individualist' argued that 'the system of |
|
|
employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the |
|
|
other essential institutions of Commercialism' would exist under |
|
|
their form of anarchism." |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
She was merely describing the beliefs of others; there is no evidence that she ever believed this herself. There is evidence, however, that de Creye opposed these beliefs: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
"I do not give you that advice. Not because I do not think that bread belongs to you; not because I do not think you would be morally right in taking it; not that I am not more shocked and horrified and embittered by the report of one human being starving in the heart of plenty than by all the Pittsburgs;, and Chicagoes, and Homesteads, and Tennessees, and Coeur d'Alenes, and Buffaloes, and Barcelonas, and Parises not that I do not think one little bit of sensitive human flesh is worth all the property rights in N. Y. city; not that I think the world will ever be saved by the sheep's virtue of going patiently to the shambles; not that I do not believe the expropriation of the possessing classes inevitable, and that that expropriation will begin by just such acts' EMMA GOLDMANN advised, viz: the taking possession of wealth already produced; not that I think you owe any consideration to the conspirators of Wall Street, or those who profit by their operations..." |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
If you will not accept this explicit rejection of capitalism and all that it encompasses, then you will have proven yourself to be absolutely intransigent. -- ] 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:She was stating the beliefs of the individualist anarchists. She was an individualist anarchist, then she changed to "anarchists without adjectives." Your link is not where I got the quote, but from the pages of the book. As far as stealing food when starving, I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I would do the same thing. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to capitalism. There's less chance of anyone going hungry the market is free - if the system is anarcho-capitalist. ] 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''...when she turned to "anarchism without adjectives" she did not change her position to opposing employee/employer...'' Have you been paying attention? In her first published work, when she was an individualist anarchist, she expressly rejected the concept of "employer". She eventually abandoned individualist anarchism because they ''embraced'' the necessity of the employer. Never in her life did she say that she supported the employee/employer hierarchy. -- ] 03:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's not why she abandoned individualist anarchism. Do you have a source for that? My source says she abandoned it because of private police. Individualists anarchists support the right of contract between people to do busisiness as employer and employee. That is, they are true anarchists.] 03:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::First, stop correcting yourself well after responses have already been given. Second, de Cleyre rejected property rights ("... one little bit of sensitive human flesh is worth all the property rights in N. Y. city...") and supported expropriation, insofar as to declare it inevitable: "... not that I do not believe the expropriation of the possessing classes inevitable, and that that expropriation will begin by just such acts' EMMA GOLDMANN advised..." She did not support expropriation only in times of desparation; she supported ''systematic'' expropriation: "Therefore, if I were giving advice, I would not say, "take bread", but '''take counsel with yourselves flow to get the power to take bread.'''" (emphasis added) Your attempt to revise history, even without any reliable sources to support your revision, is purely disruptive. -- ] 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"Disruptive"? *laugh* Anarcho-capitalists support expropriation too. That doesn't mean they oppose anarcho-capitalism. Anything that's put in private hands because of state coercion is open for expropriation, according to anarcho-captialism.] 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Who said that that the bread, in this case, was put in private hands because of state coercion? – certainly not she. The entire speech indicates that she supported the expropriation of wealth so that everyone's needs may be satisfied, whether to prevent hunger or whatever else. That is contradictory to anarcho-capitalism, whereas it is an integral part of socialism. Moreover, in the emphasized text above, she said "flow to get the power to take bread", where "power" is control over the means of production. -- ] 21:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That must have been in her communist phase. You know women. They're always changing their minds.] 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: Oh, so you support both capitalism and sexism. No big surprise there. If you're also a racist you have covered the three major forms of opression. // ] |
|
|
::::::::::Can't take a joke, can you?] 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I want to emphasize as somebody who is a prominent anarchist who self-identifies as an anarchist without adjectives that all of us are anti-capitalist. ] 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, according to your statement below that "capitalism requires a state in order to function," you don't know what capitalism is, or you have some really strange definition that the rest of the world doesn't subscribe to. Capitalism is by definition a laissez-faire system.] 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: "Keynes had consigned the laissez faire ideology to the lumber room of 'vulgar economics' as early as November 1924... See J. M. Keynes, ''Collected Writings'' vol IX, e.g. p. 277 ... : 'This is what the economists are ''supposed'' to have said. No such doctrine is really to be found in the writings of the greatest authorities. It is what the popularisers and the vulgarisers said.'" Pyllis Deane, ''The Evolution of Economic Ideas'' (Cambridge, 1978), p. 176n1. |
|
|
:: I think you would struggle to find a single reputable economist, let alone a political scientist or sociologist, who defines capitalism as pure laissez faire. ] 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course it's not defined as "pure" laissez-faire, but it's defined as laissez-faire. "Laissez-faire" is not a "pure" term. It just means that the state generally lets the economy run itself. It doesn't set the price or tell people what they have to produce. That's what capitalism is. Capitalism is a private system, as opposed to socialism where the state dictates everything. "Pure" laissez-faire would be that taken to an extreme, which would be anarcho-capitalism.] 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also, you can't really be an "anarchist without adjectives" if you oppose capitalism, since by definition anarchists without adjectives don't support or oppose any particular economic system.] 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Do you have a source for that? // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the difference between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism is that in "anarcho"-capitalism, only a relatively small number of people would own private property. Everyone else would be at their mercy assuming that the relations and contracts are "voluntary" (however, I find this illogical because in a hierarchy, one person always has a foothold over the other). Eventually it would create it's own hierarchy. In an anarcho-individualist society, EVERYONE would have ownership of private property. I think individualists like Tucker and Spooner conceived of society the way America was in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century during the times of Commercial Capitalism prior to Industrial Capitalism. They believed that everyone would be an independent producer with their own property and would come together and merge properties to form privately-owned producer cooperatives. Tucker even said that although coops would have a private "owner" the owner would not have power over his co-producers and would not be paid more than them because there would be no profit, leasing or rent. The surplus would go to all producers involved and they would sell their products on a decentralized communally-owned market. Employers and employees would basically be co-equal business parnters, not master and servant based on amount of property. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, this is why Individualists Anarchists called their philosophy "Anarchist Socialism" because they believe that socialism is the right for producers/consumers to own the products of their labor. They were anti-capitalists because capitalism has little or no regard for equality and bases relationships on power and property, and eventually some people gain natural monopolies and dominate the market. The difference with Social Anarchism (specifically Communist Anarchism) is that social anarchists don't believe anyone has the right to be someone else's employer. They believe that instead of chopping up land and productive property into little islands of private property, the land and property should be free to everyone for them to produce and distribute on their own volition, and the products of labor free for all to consume according to their self-determined wants and needs. Social anarchists basically believe everyone should be self-employed. Anarcho-collectivsts (such as Participatory Economists) believe in using currency, like individualist anarchists, but Anarcho-communists believe in abolition of currency believing that it centralizes power and limits people's ability to consume to their wants and needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anarchism without Adjectives would accept "Anarcho-capitalism" if self-described "Anarcho-capitalists" would oppose hierarchy and support direct democracy. And if they could find some way to prove that profit, interest, rent, leasing and other forms of usury are not exploitative and that they do not produce hierarchy. All anarchists are some form of socialists because socialism (producer/consumer ownership) eliminates hierarchy and makes private proprieters (in the capitalistic sense) redundant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism, on the other hand, seems to need or create a form of state to protect itself. Even if it gets rid of the public state, most "anarcho"-capitalist theorists agree and believe that private capitalists should purchase their own privately-owned "defense associations", purchase their own courts and law systems, and should be able to tax people within communities for such. Robert Nozick even said that if a private owner owns the property in town and productive property that the town was built from, the people in the town have no right to have a say in decision-making. This is basically just a privately-owned form of State. A capitalist business is also like a private form of state if the owner can take profit from employees and charge rent and interest. These are just substitutes for taxes. Capitalist bosses also have control over an employee's behavior and actions during work hours: they tell them when to show up, when to leave, how much they will get paid, where they will work, how long, how hard, even when they can go to the bathroom or when they can eat. I also have yet to see an "anarcho"-capitalist support direct democracy. Until they work these problems out, Anarchism without Adjectives places "Anarcho-capitalism" under the category of Classical Liberalism rather than Anarchism. ] 09:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Let this soak in== |
|
|
Please read this carefully:<br> |
|
|
"Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check. Regardless, to these anarchists the economic preferences are considered to be of "secondary importance" to abolishing all authority, with free experimentation the one rule of a free society." ] 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nobody contensts the fact that the rejection of coercive rulership is the central tenet of anarchism; the debate is about whether or not capitalism is compatible with this tenet. Anyway, the implication of your contribution—that ''anarchism without adjectives'' synthesizes opposing ideologies, from anarcho-communism to individualist anarchism to anarcho-capitalism— is incorrect. ''Anarchism without adjectives'' unites different types of anarchists around their common goal, but it does not attempt to reconcile their economic differences. It does not assert that all anarchist economic models are faulty in some way, nor does it embrace all anarchist economic models to a limited degree. It is completely neutral with regard to anarchist economics in order to preclude divisions, neither endorsing all systems nor criticizing all systems. -- ] 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that it's an attempt to organise all anarchists based upon what they oppose and not to prioritise what most anarchists recognise are theoretical ideas about future organisation. As all anarchists up to the "anarcho"-capitalists opposed capitalism, then unity about opposition to capitalism is a feature of Anarchism without adjectives. The criticism of "anarcho"-capitalism isn't what they propose, but what they refuse to oppose - capitalism. This is not simply an economic argument, but a tactical one. As Chomsky points out, to remove the stage without removing capitalism would lead to an even greater form of oppression than we have now - a return to the inequalities and exploitation of the early industrial era before anarchists and others forced the state (through trade unions, etc) to soften the effects of unrestrained capitalism. Everyone but the most extreme anarchists recognises that, while the state is not desirable, no-one would wish to remove the victories drawn from the state, including restrictions on working hours, workplace health and safety laws, the end of forced child labour, etc. ] 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::That's certainly true, Donnacha. To clarify, I said that "''Anarchism without adjectives'' unites different types of anarchists around their common goal...", wherein their common goal is the abolition of coercive authority (including capitalism, of course). So, in essence, we were saying the same thing. -- ] 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::With all the willful misinterpretation of everything around here, I just wanted to shore up the argument as much as possible ;) ] 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The old individualist were referring to "state capitalism" when they said they opposed capitalism. They weren't talking about free market capitalism. It's like saying you oppose communism when the only idea of it you've ever seen was state communism. From that, you can't conclude that someone would oppose voluntary communism (if there is such a thing).] 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Since capitalism arises naturally if the state doesn't interefere, then I guess anti-capitalist anarchists are resigned to support an intrusive state forever in order to prevent capitalism. That's why anti-capitalist anarchism is a big joke.] 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Capitalism arises naturally? Really? Sheesh, I must point that out to my friends from the Irish-Mexico group so they can pass it on to the people of Chiapas. They've clearly got it all wrong, what with their anti-state participatory democracy and anti-capitalism! They should, instead, be opting for the great anarcho-capitalism of the brutal, neo-feudal, increasingly fundamentalist Somalia! There's this thing called the real world out there that doesn't tend to act according to any political theories or predictions, you should check it out. ] 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Hear, hear. ] 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Bullshit. 'Nuff said. ] 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Yes, it is undoubtedly "Bullshit" and "nuff said" to those who believe they have a patent on defining certain concepts. ] 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: I don't ''believe'' anything, however I do tend toward the idea that concepts are defined by those who came up with them, not upstart wreckers like Murray Rothbard. If you want to know what anarchism is, read Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Spooner, Tucker, Goldman, Berkman, Durruti, Malatesta, Chomsky, Bookchin, etc. It's called scholarship, not the nonsense of ignorant US academics or spoiled bloody Danes who don't recognise when they have it good and seem to want the horror that was Thatcherism in the UK. ] 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: LOL! You compain about "upstart wreckers" and then cite that hack Chomsky? You're kidding, right? The rest of your nonsense I'll leave uncommented altough I'll request you start your own scholarship with the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civility |
|
|
] 23:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: Té suas ort féin. Final word on this before I start ignoring you like all the other right-wing idiots here - "upstart wreckers" means people who come late to an idea and seek to redefine it to damage it. Thus, a highly respected academic who's steeped in anarchist tradition and who's so influential that his critics resort to meaningless insults like "hack" bears no relevance to the comment. Your English needs work. ] 00:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Childishness. EOD. ] 00:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::It's naive to think that people would not engage in a trade if the state didn't interfere. To think everyone would be content to work without being paid, and share all their goods "according to need" instead of trading is really really naive. Trade makes sense.] 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Strangely enough, my politics are largely based on my experience of people. I think I've said before that I grew up in Ireland. I now live in London. I'm a senior trade unionist. I spend my entire life in the midst of people who would prefer a society based on fairness and not on competition. So, it's not naive, it's experience. It's knowledge. You, on the other hand, come across like someone who doesn't actually know any real people. ] 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Capitalism requires a state in order to function. Capitalists understand this, but the so-called "anarcho-capitalists" can't even understand the basics of how capitalism operates. ] 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why would capitalism require a state in order to function? Capitalism is simply voluntary trade of good and services, with the goods being the product of labor from transforming the natural resources of the earth into useful things. If there were no state, people would still be trading unless someone, such as "anarcho"-communists, forcefully stopped them. ] 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What does voluntary trade have to do with capitalism? // ] |
|
|
:Everything. That's how capitalism is defined. Capitalism is by definition of "free market" system, meaning system of voluntary trade. ] 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is, ''in fact'', not consistently defined that way, even in reputable dictionaries. Check the ''OED''. In any event, you are so attached to the ''word'' "capitalism" that you're twisting and turning to defend it, with the result that you have yourself defined it in at least a couple of ways recently. ] 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The OED defines it as a system that favors the existence of private ownership of means of production ("capitalists"). However, that's not all capitalism is. It includes trade as well. Without trade there is no capitalism. And without private property there can be no trade.] 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::But there is nothing in that definition of capitalism which clarifies the terms of exchange, the nature of "freedom" in the market, etc. If you want to go with the most "popular" understanding of the term, then "capitalism" for most people is what we have, and what you want to call (with some justification) a "mixed economy." But once you start talking about "capitalism" as something that naturally emerges under conditions of freedom, while at the same time talking about it as an ideal, then, again, i'm not sure what you're defending and what you are against. The traditional anarchist position is that the concentrations of capital necessary to have anything like actually-existing capitalism ''required'' a state. (At least ''anti-capitalists'' talk about ''capital'' in their definitions.) Traditionally, anarchists have not wanted ''capitalism'', because they've been uninterested in elevating ''capital'' above labor, talent, etc. It's possible to disagree with the account of the origins of capitalism, and think that things are pretty good, but we need to get rid of the state to make them better. That seems to be one an-cap position, and it's at least coherent. But it is on no firmer ground, and has no broader currency, than the traditional anarchist account. I see you just added a point about "private property." The point is incorrect. All that is needed for trade is some set of conventions about property. ''Private property'' is far, far, far from the only workable solution (assuming, for the moment, that it ''is'' a workable solution.) Any system of conventions covering possession would also function. ] 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's utterly false that there is nothing in the definition of capitalism about freedom in the market. Most definitions of capitalism point out that it is a free market system. For example, Merriam-Webster.com defines it as "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a FREE MARKET." And, not my point about private property is not incorrect. If you have the right to trade, then that means you a right to private property. What is traded other than private property? Private property means that which is owned by person which he has the right to dispose of as he wishes, whether it is to keep it or to sell it. "Possession" is incompatible with trade. That's why most of the old individualist anarchists didn't advocate trade of land (because of being misled by Proudhon), but supported private property in other products of labor. ] 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::More bullshit, 'nuff said. ] 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Amen. -- ] 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::I guess they're dumbfounded. ] 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your tendency to cling to your true belief and dismiss non-concurring trends is a terrible approach towards history, AC, especially for its interpretation. "Misled by Proudhon" indeed. We are here to represent history, not to judge it. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputes about which schools are not anarchist == |
|
|
|
|
|
For any position within anarchism, you can probably find at least one person who claims that it is not "really" anarchist. To include claims that a school is not anarchist within that school's description is, therefore, unlikely to be helpful. In particular, it strikes me as likely to lead to the he-said/she-said style, where critics of a school add more and more of their criticisms, then the school's defenders respond; that leads to long, unencyclopedic articles and edit wars. So I think it would be a good idea to keep claims that a school is not anarchist out of that school's section. Perhaps an introductory paragraph to the Schools of Anarchism section could mention that no school (with the exception, perhaps, of mutualism) is universally accepted by anarchists as anarchist. The particularly polarised debate, on capitalism and communism, can then be addressed in the Issues in Anarchism section. To that end, I've removed the claims in each school's section that it is not "really" anarchist. ] 03:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Something like that sounds good to me. If there is a criticism of one school then a criticms needs to be allowed for the other schools. Since people delete criticisms out of one school and leave the other, it may be a good idea to take them all out like you say. You mentioned something about mutualism not being disputed, but it has. For example Meltzer says mutualists are not anarchists.] 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree with VoluntarySlave on this, also. Sounds like a peace maker and a good solution. ] 04:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' - ] 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Good idea. Keep the spiteful shit out. However, I do think that minor schools should have smaller sections. Atm I actually think the balance is OK. -- ]''']''' 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*The problem is that there is a distinct and unbridgable gap between the anti-capitalists and anarcho-capitalists, of which the claim that an-cap is non-anarchistic is merely the most visible part. All the claims and counterclaims of anarchisticness come from this initial divide, and only a solution to the treatment of this divide will solve the problem. I find this proposal a touch naive. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is a "gap" between all kinds of anarchism. Anarcho-capitailsm is different from others just as others are different from still others. ] 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, there isn't. The gap between anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism is a very different kind. Anarchism has generally been unified on what anarchists oppose and divided on tactics and, ultimately, divided on ideas about future organisation. The latter is actually the least important element, because they're ideas, proposals, guesses, not dogma. "Anarcho"-capitalism is different not because it proposes something different, ''but'' what its advocates oppose, or rather refuse to oppose, namely capitalism, puts it beyond the pale for most anarchists. ] 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How are you defining capitalism?] 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree with Donnacha and GoodIntentions philosophically but for practical purposes in this article I agree somewhat with VoluntarySlave. As long as the capitalism section in "Issues" continues to reflect that most anarchist writers, schools, and arguably anarchists regard ancap with skepticism than i can live with it. ] 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Anarcho-capitalism shouldn't even have a section on this page at all. If 'twere removed altogether then this issue wouldn't arise. More seriously, AC is disputed to a far greater degree than any other brand, and this shouldn't be papered over. Look at the archives of this page and you'll see endless disputes about whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. No such debates about communists, mutualists, syndicalists or anyone else.] 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. ] 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You've only proven that on the talk page the anarcho-collectivists are intolerant of any mention of anarcho-individualism's existence, i.e. anything they personally disagree with. If we removed all sections of anarcho-collectivist thought, we wouldn't have an issue with classifying them as anarchist either, but my objective is not to erase schools of thought I disagree with. Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine. - ] 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Anarcho"-Capitalism is not a form of Individualist Anarchism. Individualist Anarchism is opposed to capitalism, and all anarchist who oppose capitalism are not Anarcho-Collectivists. Tucker, Spooner and Proudhon all opposed capitalism, were they Anarcho-Collectivsts? Anarcho-Collectivism is a philosophy (like Anarcho-Individualism) and it's own particular school. Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism are forms of collectivism, but are not Anarcho-Collectivism; just like Anarcho-Mutualism is a form of individualism but is not Anarcho-Individualism. The divide is usually called "Individualist and Social Anarchists". Neither of which so-called "An"-caps fall under. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anarchists who reject capitalism as a legitimate school of anarchism are only "intolerant" if you consider scientists who reject the Flat Earth Theory as legitimate Science to be "intolerant" ] 10:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spilt == |
|
|
|
|
|
Article is very bloated. How about splitting into (] (ie. anarchist origins etc) and ])? -- ]''']''' 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A split looks feasable at first glance, but I doubt that it is. This article isn't bloated compared to other political movement pages - just take a look at ], for instance. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:would a split be beneficial to cohesiveness? i don't think so. actually, for such a bloated political doctrine/movement/ideal i don't think the article is all that bloated. ] 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, an article we do still need is ]. That way we could give extensive coverage of that part of the topic without bloating the main article. Obviously, the two overlap to such an extent that much would have to remain, but it would allow us to trim down those areas without having to worry about any loss of useful information. It'd be nice to have an article focusing on the contemporary anarchist movement, since that's an area that has always felt somewhat neglected here. ] 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well there is already (extensive) coverage of this in the anarchism article now. Maybe this is the material that can be split? ] 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'd say the article only has a puny overview of anarchism as a movement at present. Not to mention that it stops at the Spanish Revolution. ] 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Economic == |
|
|
|
|
|
Not a major enough issue to be included in the intro. Many other issues exist; no reason for this to be highlighted. -- ]''']''' 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I disagree. That is the single most important issue. All anarchists oppose the state but beyond that they all advocate different economic systems and that's what makes them the kinds of anarchism that they are. ] 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::How often do you hear anarchists argue about capitalism? There are far more major issues within anarchism than capitalism. Ancapism is the only "form of anarchism" that supports capitalism, and it happens to have the smallest number of members. Please avoid giving minor opinions ]. -- ]''']''' 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Its irrelevant wether or not ancaps are many or few, becuase it isnt possibly to find any exact numbers and its possbile to find sources which says that they are many (fx in the US) and sources that say they are few. All this "many X is Z" or "few X is Z" is really not relevant when theres lots of sources who take the ancaps perspective. Its sources that counts here, because its all about verifiability! Unless you can find some source that have counted how many there are then, its a useless debate, and one thats made it, and which makes it, harder to get to any kind of compromise! --] 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't believe it is the most important division. If this article referred exclusively to anti-capitalist anarchism I would have considered the most important distinction the degree of communality of public space (the continuum running more or less communism-collectivism-syndicalism-mutualism-individualism). As the article stands the distinction needs to be made, but perhaps not in those words. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Economics is the most important area by which various forms of anarchism differ. If it wasn't for economics issues we wouldn't need to have Schools section. ] 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
All in all, this single one issue should not be in the introduction, because other issues exist. Source-finding is irrelevant; there are many other sources pointing out other issues as key. You need to be *balanced* and not just focus on the things that interest you. -- ]''']''' 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== historical events == |
|
|
|
|
|
] added two events back from the last 10- years. How are these historical? ] 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because Seattle marked a new era in political events and will be remembers as the birthplace of the international movement against globalisation and the Argentinian riots marked the end of the triumphant neoliberalism in Latin America. Both are major events that mark turning points in history and, thus, are historical events. ] 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Honestly, I thought Intangible's reason for removing them was that they weren't associatted with anarchism, which i disagree with, not that they weren't historical. i do think they can be considered historical events, especially WTO, but no matter what they shouldn't have been removed without some discussion first. i am for leaving them in. ] 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, Donnacha thinks they are not anarchist events, but anti-globalization events. I think they are not historic events, because: a) the events only happened recently b) there are no sources describing the events as such. ] 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Stop splitting hairs, anarchist and "anti-globalisation" are not mutually exclusive. Anarchists were a major part of the movement worldwide - Reclaim the Streets grew out of the UK's Class War organisation. It was not, and to the extent there is still a movement is not, exclusively anarchist, but it is definitely ''anarchic'' in its forms of organisation and activity and includes thousands of anarchists. ] 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If it happened in the past (and was written about) it's historical, even if it happened yesterday. It's called ''recent'' history. The Seattle WTO protests ''definitely'' had to do with anarchism--they were a catalyst for the anarchist movement and gave us a (relatively) large ammount of mainstream attention. It's even mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on anarchism. ]] 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Yes, there certainly is a qualitative difference between "historical" in the sense of "history-changing" and "historical" in the sense of a record of (significant) events. --] 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Still are these events "significant"? Searching Google Scholar makes me belief they are not. This events can be added (or discussed) again when the time has come, when historians actually make this notion that they are historical. For now, they think they are not. If you disagree, you would have no trouble finding an article on Google Scholar that says otherwise. ] 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Order of Schools of Anarchist Theory == |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree they should be put in alphabetical order. Sure it is the criterion within which there can be no dispute (a comes before b and c after b), but it is not necessarily the fairest approach and it is definitely not consensual. I believe there are other things to consider. There could be a case where a school that is much less representative, and most far off of what is generally considered to be the core principles of anarchism, appears on top. Some people might find this criterion more reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose to try to put the names of schools in order of historical importance. I think we can find a relatively objective criterion that goes beyond personal conviction. Speaking on my part, even though I am pretty much "pro-leftist", for example, I believe that perhaps anarcho-syndicalism should be on top.Maziotis 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestion is that the first schools should be "Syndicalist and Individualist", where you will find the fundamental anarchist debate around individualism vs collectivism, and where most of the anarchist principles are found within the context of the first currents to be formulated in anarchism. Then there could be the femminist school, which is old and points out to principles that cannot be found in the first two. Next, I think it would be fair to choose something outside the sphere of “collectivist” or “socialist” anarchist schools, like Primitivist and Eco, which may be consider more recent, but are on their own solid anarchist conceptions. I believe this four are the fundamental schools in which most people see themselves. The other schools should be put next and are of course of importance. “mutualist” school, for example, comes from Proudhon, a father of anarchism, and historically has its weight. Capitalist is much more of a curiosity within the anarchist movement than anything else. The historical argument is most of it base on libertarian ideas, which are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is simply a suggestion that I would like to discuss with the rest of you.Maziotis 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Anarchism" |
|
|
|
|
|
::Most anarchists are simply unaware of "anarcho-capitalism" and the ones who know about it reject it as an absurdity. The anthology that I'm working on which covers North American anarchism of the past 40 years will have no coverage of "anarcho-capitalism." Otherwise, I think you all are doing some original research here when it comes to determining which school of anarchist thought is the most important. The order of sections on the main page never bothered me, but there should be some kind of historical order to it. You could rank schools according to the number of people who've used those labels, but data is scarce. The surveys we've done at Infoshop have found that most anarchists identify as anarcho-communists, plain ole anarchists, and anarchists w/o adjectives. Anarcho-syndicalism has been an important school of thought for many decades, but the numbers for them aren't as high as people think. The number of primitivists is smaller still. Many anarchists identify with multiple labels, so probably some other factor such as history should determine ordering. ] 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How can you write an "anthology" of anarchism if you're not going to discuss anarcho-capitalism at all? By letting your bias getting in the way of being a true scholar. That's how. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I oppose any attempt to hide that it exists. I sure won't be lending your anthology any credibility because I'm sure the rest of it will be infected with your selective bias. ] 23:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Simple - "anarcho"-capitalism ''isn't'' anarchism by any reasonable understanding of anarchism, particularly with an historical perspective. A book on cars doesn't need to mention bicycles, even if someone decides to build a two-wheeled "car". ] 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Re: Anarcho-syndicalism - was it an either/or question? Most syndicalists are also communists or collectivists. ] 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(edit conflict) Some slight issues. Firstly, syndicalism isn't really a school, it's a tactical form of organisation without its own theoretical outcome - in Catalonia, for example, it led to collectivism and communism. Secondly, "feminist" wasn't orginally a "school" either - Emma Goldman introduced ideas that became radical feminism much later, however, she placed her arguments squarely within her overall attempts to synthesis a variety of issues. They were a development of anarchist ideas into the personal realm, along with her gay rights issues, etc. She was very clear that she saw true women's liberation as part and parcel of anarchist revolution and was primarily expanding upon the needs and implications of human liberation for women (something lacking in the concepts of most of the men before her except Godwin). ] 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The current order is roughly chronological, which is about as neutral as we're going to get. I would prefer to see anarcho-capitalism given its own section at the end, as it was not simply an outgrowth of the individualist tradition, and was the latest of the major schools to develop. Syndicalism was historically and organizationally significant and, while its notions about property may resemble that of other schools, its organizational approach was indeed novel. ] 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not really, it was a development of the organisational forms of the Jura Federation, from whom Bakunin got many of his ideas. It was anarchism developing with the labour movement rather than a new form as such. It was very much a part of the competition with the Marxists from the First International onwards. ] 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I disagree with you about anarcho-capitalism. It is right smack in the middle of the individualist tradition, never mind being an "outgrowth." ] 01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don't believe that anarcho-capitalism should be crossed out. I just think it should be at the end. For most anarchists it is just a relatively recent curiosity. And most of the supposed history is just its own interpretation of libertarianism and individualist ideas in anarchism. I find the anarcho-capitalist article to be quiet parasitic, but that’s a whole different topic. The point is that this concept hasn't existed as a solid social movement for long. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, you are getting off the topic. What do you think about my proposal? The current order is alphabetic and I Believe it should be put in the order of historic importance, as I have suggested in my first post.] 10:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:After consdering your proposal, and the posts of other editors, I think order of historical occurance would be the best way to present the schools, with order of presentation in the article atm being second. There's no way to do it by population subscribing to each school and I don't think alphabetical order has any qualitative bearing for someone viewing the article. ] 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I disagree, these template are called "navigational templates" for a reason, namely that people have quick access to various sub-topics. Alphabetizing helps people find information quickly, and I do not see any other NPOV way of formatting that schools section. ] 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Order of historical appearance is about as NPOV as you can get. If you take things ''out'' of historical order, then you have to assign some other scheme of organization, and you lose the obvious developmental narrative. ] 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually it is not. I can easily argue why the latest anarchist development should be at the top of the list (on the basis of ] for example), but that is POV, you could easily argue to the contrary on the basis of Thomas Kuhn's work. Alphebetizing is a NPOV scheme for '''"navigational templates."''' ] 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And people ''do'' have quick access to various sub-topics. And they have quick access to an overview of the history of anarchism at the very same time. ''And'' we don't have to fight over what the various schools will be called and, thus, where they will fall in the order. The problem with any sort of newest-first ''evolutionary'' model is that it is really likely to emphasize the fringes and recent deviations, rather than the stable portions of the tradition. Attempts to display "evolution" are difficult to keep NPOV, and, ''in fact'', many of the worst POV problems in anarchist history come from claims by various schools to be the most advanced form of anarchism. ] 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I suggest having an "Individualist forms of anarchism" section and a "Social (or collectivst) forms of anarchism" section for ancom, ansyn, green anarchism, etc, and maybe an "Other forms of anarchism" for anything that doesn't fit. ] 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Being "NPOV" is not the same as being "neutral". You forget that there could be more than one criterion that is absolutely NPOV, and choosing one versus the other implies that one school is more accessible than the other. I could either choose to order them by alphabetical order or I could choose to order them by the number of letters that each term possess. They are both NPOV. You can say that ordering by number of letters makes no sense and that the alphabetical order serves a practical necessity. Well, so does the historical order. It is not evident which things we should take into account.] 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:good point. ] 21:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::By what standard can you neutrally decide if you start your "historical order" at the beginning or at the end? At least my alphabet always starts with the letter A. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Um. Yeah. So should I ask you "by what standard" you start with A, rather than Z? It strikes me you have answered your own question. ] 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you want to order the schools from Z to A, that's fine with me, we just take your alphabet. ] 01:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: But it might not be for another person. Don't forget that the existence of a possible dispute within a criterion was the reason why you argued that my standard wasn't a good one.] 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''By what standard can you neutrally decide if you start your "historical order" at the beginning or at the end?'' |
|
|
My point was never to propose an absolute neutral standard, if there is such a thing. But I believe we can come up with a reasonable approach to the problem. By starting of from the beginning we would have the tools to understand how things turn out to be later. The specific reasons for this order are argued in my first post. And I believe they are not as subjective as some might think. You simple follow the order laid out in the "anarchism" article itself, trying to take into account other factors, such as not putting in sequence several different terms that designate the socialist body of anarchist thought. This would avoid an excessive and unbalanced treatment regarding a specific ideological current inside anarchism. I believe there is an "encyclopedic way" to explain a subject and that we should adopt it. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for you ability to be precise, as I have said in my first post, it is only within you own criterion (alphabetical). But that doesn’t mean that the criterion is more consensual as a whole, or fairer, in comparison with the others, for everyone.] 22:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Silliness aside, what we need is an order which facilitates both inclusiveness and a minimum of POV conflicts. Position is a series is only one way in which the importance of individual schools will be weighed, and we really have no control over what presuppositions in that regard our readers bring to the article. Even if we wanted to push a particular POV, we would only have so much control. Giving "first place" to mutualism will not influence those enthusiastic for ''newness''. And if we try to start ''at the present'', we're stuck trying to figure out if ''post-leftist anarchism'', ''postanarchism'', or neo-whateverist anarchism is the most recent significant splinter. The critical thing is that the facts be straight, and that some sort of organizational scheme be followed with some care. Right now, we have a workable organizational scheme, and lots of so-so content. ] 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
meaning....?] 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Meaning, if we had our facts straight, the order of entries would be a whole lot less important. ] 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. But that doens't solve the problem. And if no one as a different proposal, I will move forward with mine. It seems most people agreed with me and didn't gave any other solution. We can always discuss changes later.] 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is no problem. The current alphabetic ordering is just fine. ] 11:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think there is a problem but am unsure whether its worth the shitstorm which fixing it will call down upon us. I say go ahead Maziotis as many if not most people here agree with you. ] 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible, you are the only person that thinks there is no problem. The current alphabetic ordering is not just fine for most people.] 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's face it guys, you wouldn't be having this debate if Capitalism began with a Z. --] 00:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We wouldn't have a problem if Capitalism could exist without hierarchy, exploitation, domination and concentration of power. ] 10:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anarchism in Hungary? == |
|
|
Someone recently added a link to the ] article in the side bar. after looking at the page and its contents i am skeptical about its inclusion. Most of the organizations named on the page seem more facist than anarchist and i think everyone here will agree. One is a neo-nazi movement whose article makes no mention of anarchism whatsoever. Several are movements whose goal is to annex neighboring countries of hungary. one seems to be the conservative counterparty to the socialist party in hungary. another is a group that seeks to refute the outcomes of WWI and II. What the hell? Y'all please look over this article and see what you think. ] 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I should clarify, i am not against an article about anarchism in hungary, but this one seems to have nothing to do with anarchism. ] 15:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well it looks like someone has already deleted most of the stuff i was talking about. ] 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Introduction of mutualism to US == |
|
|
|
|
|
There simply isn't any debate. Proudhon's mutualism was introduced into the US by Dana in 1848, with ''Proudhon and his Bank of the People'', and then more fully in William B. Greene's mutual bank writings of 1849 (in the ''Worcester Palladium'' and the book ''Equality'') and 1850 (''Mutual Banking''.) Tucker acknowledges that he was introduced to Proudhon by Greene. Greene was also the first to translate sections of ''Solution of the Social Problem'', which are included in all editions published during his lifetime, but missing from a few of the posthumous editions. ] 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ok.] 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The rest of the sentence remains misleading, thanks to Woodcock's considerably ''less than perfect'' account. The whole section is largely unsupported generalizations, and the fact that there is apparently little awareness of the first 25 years of mutualism in the US doesn't add much to my confidence. The "citation" about wage levels points to the preface of Carson's book, which is hardly an adequate source for the claims made. I would also like to see some documentation for the claim that Proudhon said property would be "legitimate." ] 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He didn't use the word "legitimate." But he didn't say it would be "protected," which is what I substitute "legitimate" for. But, he did think it would be legitimate. You're not aware that he supported family ownership of land?] 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The whole question of "property" with regard to Proudhon is, as you know, complicated. I have never found anything in his later writings to suggest he abandoned his philosophical critiques of property, however much he came around to the position of pursuing what property ''aims at''. If, by "legitimate property," we mean equal rights to occupancy and use, that's probably what we ought to say. If there's some evidence for a stronger notion of property, then it needs to be cited. ] 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, he abandoned the "occupancy and use" theory. He supported land as "property.": "At first Proudhon argued that the only form of property ownership should be the right of "possession." By this he meant that the land should belong only to those who worked on it, though he did allow the State the right to intervene to insure that the land was properly cultivated by its owners. Later, Proudhon came to consider that liberty could be guaranteed only if property ownership was not subject to any limitation save that of size. This development can best be seen in his posthumously published "Theory of Property", where Proudhon reverses his earlier preference for "possession" rather than "property" as a form of ownership, arguing instead that the individual must be absolutely sovereign over his own land. But right from the first, Proudhon argued in favor of the small farm, one just large enough to support a peasant family. His basic conviction was that the peasant wanted to be able to own the land he worked on, and be free to pass it on to his own children - in contrast to Bakunin, for example, who pursauded the First International to vote in favor of the abolition of the right of inheritance." Edwards, Stewart. Introduction to Selected Writings of Proudhon, page 33] 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Stewart says so, which makes him citable, but not necessarily correct. Can you find any evidence in his selections, or elsewhere, to support the claim? In the past, I have cited passages from the ''Theory of Property'' which maintain the position that ''property'' is inherently unjust, although "in its aims" there is something necessary to liberty. That is a very different position than ''legitimacy''. ] 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I don't want to cite Proudhon himself. It's easy to cite him out of context and easy to claim that the person citing him is citing him out of context or that they're misinterpreting. I'd rather leave the interpretation to the experts.] 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"The only thing we know with any certainty that distinguishes it from possession is that it is absolute and unjust." (Stewart, 131; ''Theorie de la Propriete'', 128, 129) Stewart's inclusions actually show pretty clearly that Proudhon only embraced property as an naturally abusive force that could be pitted against the similar force of the state. This is in the period where he no longer expected his ''antinomies'' to synthesize into something else. Balanced antagonisms, rather than any sort of harmony or justification, characterize Proudhon's latter period. ] 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Does land have anything to do with mutualism anyway? Maybe it shouldn't even be mentioned. I don't see why supporting "possession" or not determines whether someone is a mutualist. Does it?] 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Ultimately, property in land is the counterbalance to the state. It's just important we characterize Proudhon's understanding of such property correctly. ] 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I output many definitions to the Mutualism article earlier, and I don't think any of them mentioned land. I don't think land has anything to do with mutualism.] 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::The land question is extremely important to Proudhon, and to the ''Liberty'' group (who consistently advocate occupancy and use). Greene ''appears'' to maintain the occupancy and use standard, although the evidence is slight enough to be not worth citing. Anyway, I take it that you ''don't'' have any stronger evidence to back up Stewart's claim. I guess I have to dig out my copy of ''Théorie de la propriété'' again. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it would be nice to have this section accurate. I figured I would ask before I started to edit. A word to the wise: the secondary sources on mutualism are often pretty awful. Ronald Creagh's book is probably the best-researched and least biased, but it's in French. ] 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No offense, but I don't trust your interpretation of Proudhon any more than I trust mine. I can find quotes in Theory of Property that back up Stewart's claim, but I don't see the point. For everything Proudhon says it's usually pretty easy to find something that contradicts it.] 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::No offense, but I'm pretty sure you don't ''have'' an interpretation of Proudhon that extends beyond the secondary material. ] 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Well you're wrong. I do have my own interpretation of Proudhon. And, as far as I can tell his philosophy was pretty damned flawed.] 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I have another secondary source though: "Proudhon came to doubt whether his previous distinction between property and possession was as useful as he had once thought. He came to the conclusion that 'property is the only power which can act as a counterweight to the State'." Copleston, Frederick. History of Philosophy, page 67-68] 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::But that source does not really support Stewart's much stronger contention. Nobody seems to question that Proudhon made much less use of the property/possession distinction in his writings. The important issue is what, other than his rhetoric (about which he made very conscious decisions early on), ''actually changed'' in the later works. ] 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Either way, I don't think it has anything to do with mutualism. He was mutualist even when his position on land changed. I think mutualism is about workers' assocations and using labor notes and a mutualist bank. Land is not an issue for mutualism, as mutualism is defined.] 19:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's no wonder secondary sources about Proudhon "were crap." He was pretty incoherent at times, and certainly not a monolith, so his writings left open all kind of different interpretations. That being said, they are on the only crappy thing we can use here at Misplaced Pages. ] 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There's no prohibition against using primary sources, provided they are clear. We do it all the time, as we should. I think Proudhon's "incoherence" is overstated, generally by people who haven't read much of him, but that's neither here nor there. ] 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The quote from Greene to which VisionThing seems to object has at least the virtue of having come from a mutualist. The set of generalizations it replaces were unsourced and internally inconsistent. There are very few programmatic statements of mutualism, as we have repeatedly noted. This one has the added value of suggesting in what sense an individualist philosophy is also meaningfully ''mutualist''. ] 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm completely open to a ''better'' mutualist statement, but we already have too much OR in the entry. ] 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::What is wrong with this (sourced from UK Encarta): "Less productive worker would receive less than more productive one and personal and small-scale property would be protected"? ] 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For one thing, I don't think it tells us anything very interesting about mutualism, or anything, really, that isn't covered better elsewhere. The Greene quote gives such specific elaboration of the previous sentence, and includes the element of ''mutuality'', which is largely lacking from Misplaced Pages's treatments of mutualism. I also prefer the fact that the Greene quote is from a text largely available online, so that it's context is accessible to all readers. In general, other encyclopedias seem like the ''last'' place we would want to be sourcing from. We all know the "truth vs. verifiability" issues that riddle Misplaced Pages with information that is "sort of true." All general references tend to generate generalities—and it's a ''garbage in garbage out'' situation if we're not careful. When we can use primary sources in relatively uncontroversial ways, that is ideal. The Greene source makes mutual gain an outcome of individualistic actions, and that's the dynamic it's so hard to catch in mutualist writings (really, in most anarchist writings, to one extent or another.) ] 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually it's wrong. Productiveness doesn't matter in mutualism. It is the work itself that matters. You can be very productive but if you didn't put much labor into it (say, because you've invented a way to save yourself some labor and be more efficient), mutualists won't pay you much for what you produced. Two people exerting the same amount of labor get the same pay regardless of how productive they are. Another reason why mutualism is ridiculous. I did fix the statement though to make this clear, but I think Libertatia deleted it.] 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That sort of "clarification," as obviously incorrect as it is, won't be missed. Which mutualist can you possibly be misconstruing in this way? ] 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::He's right. In Mutualism people are paid with "labor notes" are they not? Proudhon said "to each according to his labor." Mutualists think that value is to be measured by the amount of labor embodied in the production of a commodity. If one person is laboring more than another person then he gets paid more. Productiveness is irrelevant to Mutualists. ] 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The whole criticism is simplistic and confused. "Amount of labor" is tough to quantify, except in terms of time, and even Warren, who came closest to a simple time dollar, ended up factoring other elements, such as "repugnance" of labor into the equation. And, as repugnance is individually determined, we're back to a market negotiation. Proudhon does not make the separation between amount of labor and product of labor suggested above, and sets payment by product, rather than time labored. Proudhon, to my knowledge, never proposed labor notes, and Greene certainly didn't. For the self-identified mutualists, the organization of free credit was the important economic goal, and mutual money was based in credit. It was not a labor note. Of the contributors to ''Liberty'', only Andrews seems to have been much of a labor note enthusiast. The Greene quote gives a much better sense of what mutualism was and is about, than fixation on this or that project. ] 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Looking through the literature, it appears that most of the enthusiasm for labor notes was actually in Owenite and Fourierist circles, or in non-anarchist cooperative communities such as Kaweah. Warren was a reformed Owenite, and Andrews an evolved Fourierist, so perhaps there's not much surprise that they favored this approach. ] 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Bottom line is mutualists think value is proportional to labor. It's the labor theory of value. It's complete bunk. Mutualists think that those who labor more than others should be paid more than others, and vice versa. Output (production) has nothing to do with mutualism. If someone works for 10 hours and produces one widget, and someone works for 10 hours and produces two widgets, they would receive the same income whether in labor notes or normal currency. If the guy above who produced one widget it paid less than the guy who produced 2 widgets, then he's been "exploited." His labor has been stolen, according to mutualists. It's absurd. That's why individulist anarchists today (anarcho-capitalists) discard the labor theory of value and have a subjective theory of value. There is no way to "steal" someone's labor in a free market, regardless of what he's paid. Labor is simply worth what anyone is willing to pay for it. ] 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::May I gently suggest that you ''read'' what the mutualists have to say about these issues before you dig yourself any deeper? Proudhon is quite explicit on this stuff in ''What Is Property?'' Greene never even ''approached'' the position you're describing. I'm fairly certain that anyone presenting your version of "mutualism" in ''Liberty'' would have been ripped to shreds by Tucker. I'm willing to bet that neither Kevin Carson nor Larry Gambone interpret the LTV in the way you describe, and I can say with confidence that I certainly don't. How is it that "mutualists" believe this, when there doesn't seem to be a single individual mutualist who held this theory? ] 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::It is fundamental to mutualism. Mutualists have a labor theory of value. In other words, they think value is proportional to labor. People like Kevin Carson think that if the state does not interevene in the economy that prices will match up with labor amounts. When prices are not proportional to labor amounts, then people are being exploited. Part of their labor is stolen from them, and is considered "usury" or "profit." It's like Marxism and "surplus value." If you don't have a labor theory of value then you're not a mutualist. According to Kevin Carson, "most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." Carson is trying to revive the labor theory of value form of individualist anarchism, that has that Marxist-like exploitation theory. It's a truly bizarre attempt, since economics has progressed. There is no such thing as "exploitation" by not paying according to labor. "Exploitation" is an illusion based on a flawed premise...the labor theory of value. ] 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Who, other than you, is talking about "exploitation" right now? You see ''some'' version of the LTV and assume far too much from it, with the result that you ignore the actual positions of ''all'' the mutualists. My sense is that pretty much everyone who we would call a mutualist expects cost and price to converge under genuinely free market conditions. But only the most simplistic labor note advocates, who seem to nearly all fall outside the mutualist camp, make, or have made, any attempt to force that convergence. Misunderstanding Carson on this point is particularly inexcusible, as he has written such much on precisely what he means when he invokes the LTV. You may think mutualists are silly for advocating any form of the LTV, but that doesn't mean that they advocate the truly silly positions you attribute to them. The points you raise were raised and answered in one of Tucker's first forays into debate, I believe, in ''The Index'' in 1873. Those debates are available online. ] 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I am not saying anyone would "force" the expected convergence, but that they expect it in a free market and think that labor is being exploited or stolen when it doesn't happen. If you don't know that mutualists think that when people are not paid according to their labor then they're being exploited then you don't know the first thing about mutualism. Benjamin Tucker says "...Karl Marx's position that the employee is forced to give up a part of his product to the employer (which, by the way, was Proudhon's position before it was Marx's, and Josiah Warren's before it was Proudhon's)." The only way it can be claimed that a person is forced to give up part of his labor is if value is supposed to match up with labor. That is, if you have a labor theory of value. But in reality, no matter what you're paid, you're not giving up part of your labor. Your labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The latter is the modern individualist anarchist position, that is, the anarcho-capitalist position.] 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::If the an-cap position really is to say that there is no possibility of injustice ''under current market conditions'', then we can say goodbye to all pretense of an-caps supporting anything other than the status quo. I certainly know an-caps who are ''not'' simply blind to the possibility of injustice in the labor market, which is reassuring, however quaint and retro such a position may seem to you. The prediction that cost and price will converge is actually an old classical liberal one, so it's likely that a certain number of an-caps of that variety share it. Anyway...if there ''is'' such a thing as obstruction of a free market, then it ought to manifest itself in inequity and injustice of various sorts, unequal bargaining power in the market. Obstruction and deformation of the free exchange of labor will logically result in deformation of wage structures which we might wish to call ''exploitation''. It's hard to see how any ''anarchist'' could object to so labelling unfree labor exchange. To relinquish the category of exploitation ''completely'' is to relinquish a simple means of characterizing the intervention and unfreedom which we, as anarchists, oppose. Too bad Marx got his grubby paws all over so many concepts, but the avoidance of Marx shouldn't send us running into the arms of the State and its apologists. ] 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No ancaps believe that labor will be paid for with an equal amount of labor in a free market. The fact that they don't is what makes them ancaps and not mutualists. No economist today that I'm aware of takes such a theory seriously. Nor should labor be paid for with an equal amount of labor. Why should it? If labor receives a product of a lesser amount of labor in exchange, that doesn't mean exploitation has taken place as mutualists say. They simply hold a flawed premise that's misleading them. If I purchase someone's labor with a product of my own lesser amount of labor, it doesn't mean I have "profited" or "exploited" as mutualists say. I haven't profited at all. I simply purchased it as a price I thought it was worth. Value is subjective. There is no objectively correct price of anything, and therefore the mutualist (and Marxist) theory of exploitation/profit is pure fantasy. Tucker and Proudhon maybe had an excuse since economics was in a primitive state back then. But Kevin Carson is simply a lunatic. ] 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Wow! You really ''are'' just a defender of the status quo. Thanks for the clarification. ] 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::No I am not a defender of the status quo. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I support the elimination of the state and a voluntary system where aggression and fraud is illegal, and where private property is only legitimate it if it acquired without coercion or fraud. Rejecting the labor theory of value doesn't make me a defender of the status quo. The labor theory of value is simply wrong, therefore mutualism is a fallacious philosophy. The labor theory of value is misleading some people into thinking that there is something "wrong" with labor not being paid for with an equal amount of labor, but there's not anything wrong with it whatseover. It is not exploitation, it is not theft, it is not usury, it is not even "profit" as it is defined today.] 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I agree, you're not defending the status quo, it's far worse. You're arguing for a return to feudalism and absolute slavery. And stop attributing the labour theory of value to everyone who disagree, anarchist communists recognise that all theories of the value of labour are subjective and thus reject monetarism. ] 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::You've never seen Kropotkin talk of "surplus value"? You can't conclude that there is such a thing as surplus value unless you think the labor theory of value is true. Kropotkin, who was an anarcho-communist, indeed holds a labor theory of value. And yes I agree that anarcho-communists reject money. They won't even allow it for those who want to use it. That can be seen from the experiences of the Spanish "anarchists" who violently confiscated money from innocent people. ] 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::"The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said, thus narrowing the Socialist conception and the general view of the capitalist system; the surplus-value itself is but a consequence of deeper causes. The evil lies in the possibility of a surplus-value existing, instead of a simple surplus not consumed by each generation; for, that a surplus-value should exist, means that men, women, and children are compelled by hunger to sell their labour for a small part of what this labour produces, and, above all, of what their labour is capable of producing. But this evil will last as long as the instruments of production belong to a few. As long as men are compelled to pay tribute to property holders for the right of cultivating land or putting machinery into action, and the property holder is free to produce what bids fair to bring him in the greatest profits, rather than the greatest amount of useful commodities--well-being can only be temporarily guaranteed to a very few, and is only to be bought by the poverty of a section of society. It is not sufficient to distribute the profits realized by a trade in equal parts, if at the same time thousands of other workers are exploited. It is a case of PRODUCING THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF GOODS NECESSARY TO THE WELL-BEING OF ALL, WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE WASTE OF HUMAN ENERGY." - this is not the labour theory of value. ] 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::As you can see there, he thinks there is such a thing as "surplus-value." Therefore he accepts a labor theory of value. A subjectivist does not think there's any such thing as surplus value. The value of anything is simply what someone pays for it.] 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::The surplus is the difference between what the owner of capital pays the worker compared to the price the owner sells it for. It's not fixed, there's no magic number, it's not the labour theory of value, it's simply a description of exploitation. The basis of anti-monetarism is that monetary value is subjective and thus useless. ] 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::He is assuming that the worker's labor is more valuable than is being reflected in what he is being paid. And, he thinks this is because they don't have bargaining power. That is clearly a labor theory of value. A subjective theory of value says the workers is always being paid what he's worth. There is no way to overpay or underpay anyone. There is no correct price of anything. You say that "monetary value is subjective and thus useless," but that's senseless, because it is useful because it is subjective. Money allows each person to decide for himself what something else is worth. Allowing subjectivity is essential to individual liberty. Even if you got rid of money, there would still be subjective value judgements when people bartered. Money just makes trade easier. Anarcho-communists want to abolish trade altogether, which makes no sense at all. It's based on a phony "surplus value" theory.] 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that at least some of the an-caps here assume that any theory of exploitation must be tied to the simplest form of "cost principle," an unmodified time-dollar or the like. It's worth repeating that the ''only'' advocates of labor notes among the major individualists seem to have been Warren and Andrews, and that they modified their conceptions to include factors other than labor-time almost immediately. For other individualist anarchists, the LTV seems to have been primarily a prediction of conditions under genuinely free conditions of labor exchange. Some of the positions attributed to anarcho-capitalism in general seem unlikely. Presumably an-caps believe that state interference limits the freedom of trade, and its hard to imagine that they could not imagine circumstances where state interference in the labor market modifies wage structures unjustly. If not, then one of two things seems to follow: 1) either the state does not interfere at all with trade, and there's no point in an an-cap opposing the state, or 2) somehow, the state never interferes with workers' attempts to maximize wages, while it does interfere with the rights of property. Both seem unlikely as explanations, and lead to unlikely political positions. Since an-caps are reluctant to acknowledge a class difference between labor and capital, and since self-ownership makes distinctions between ''my labor'' and ''my property'' a bit fuzzy, the response against ''exploitation'' theories seems overheated and underthought. ] 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, I am fully aware that mutualists would adjust labor time for difficulty of work. When you're adjusting labor times for the difficulty of the work, you're still basing price on labor; even more so, actually. And, your wrong about labor notes only being proposed by Warren and Andrews. "Social anarchism can be divided into several schools: The oldest of these is mutualism, founded by the man who was first to call himself an anarchist, the Frenchman Peirre-Joseph Proudhon. Under mutualism, the state would be abolished, and factories would be owned and controlled by the workers in the form of producers' associations. Compensation would be retained in the form of labor checks paid to workers by peoples' banks, corresponding to the number of hours they worked." (Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, page 5) And, "...this proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based no the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged inproduction, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labor checks representing the hours of labor required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as Mutuellisme, all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent." (Kroporkin, Peter. Anarchism) For the individualist with a LTV like Benjamin Tucker, they not only think that labor would naturally pe paid with an equal amount of labor in a free market, but they thought it "ought" to be. If not, then exploitation is taking place, in their opinion. As far as anarcho-capitalism goes, no the state does not cause individuals to be paid less than their labor is worth. An individual is always being paid according to how another individual values his labor. That price is never correct or incorrect. It simply is. Individuals are just as likely be paid less for their labor in a truly free market. Those individuals producing things that the public is losing their taste for would accordingly see their wages being gradually reduced, as individuals customers exercised their subjective value judgements on what was being produced. If the workers wanted higher wages, then they would have to not necessarily work harder, but apply their labor to producing something else. Again, value is in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do with labor amounts. Just because you're working harder than the next guy, it doesn't mean others should pay you more for what you produce if others don't find any use for what you're producing (nor does it mean that your income would rise in a free market). You're simply misapplying yourself. ] 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I see you're vandalizing the Mutualism page now. Kropotkin is certainly one of the best secondary sources you've come up with, but the claim about Proudhon looks questionable. The "national bank" would be the Bank of Exchange of 1848, which was to issue a secured currency, based on discounted business paper. The Bank of the People, proposed the same year, also issued a secured currency. All of the claims about Proudhon and "credit checks" seem to ultimately source to either Kropotkin or Marx, and neither of them are particularly clear about their sources. Only on Misplaced Pages would anyone think this cut it as proof. ] 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have not "vandalized" anything. All discussion with you will now cease since you can't have a civil discussion. Bye Bye.] 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh, dear. I've hurt your feelings. My apology. I thought someone who called mutualists "lunatics" could take a little push-back. ] 17:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I called Kevin Carson a lunatic. He is not an editor here, but an author. You accused me of having bad faith before on the Mutualist discussion page when all I was doing was citing sources in order to learn how Mutualism is defined. I've had enough of you.] 17:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From Martin, ''Men Against the State'' (via the Mutualist FAQ): "It was Greene's monumental contribution to abandon the old Owenite/ Warrenite model of "labor for labor" exchange, and to replace it with a market system of pricing based on the monetization of all durable wealth." Proudhon is still an open question. ] 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== classifying Godwin == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the classification of Godwin as "minarchist," because it seems clear that his ultimate goal is the elimination of the ''evil'' of government. We're listing without caveat other evolutionary anarchists. ] 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Right, but the same can be said of Marx. Godwin, like Thoreau, evidently thought govt was okay for the present, but might eventually be eliminated when people were better, more educated, more evolved. Question: Isn't "evolutionary anarchist" used in two different ways? Sometimes to mean that the means for achieving anarchy need/should not be violent revolution, other times to mean that anarchy is impossible until/unless people are perfected? The former are anarchist, while the latter are minarchist in my estimation. ] 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's slightly anarchronistic to call Godwin an anarchist, but he is broadly accepted by the movement, and by historians of the movement, as one. The notion that he is "technically" something else introduces all sorts of issues into the article that, frankly, we'll never deal with adequately. How soon do you have to believe anarchy is possible, in order to qualify as an "anarchist"? Proudhon, who at times seems to argue that "anarchy" is a sort of limit-state, might have ''less'' claim to the title, if we want to play that game. But an article that claims Proudhon isn't an anarchist is necessarily ''original research''. We can't go there here. ] 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Godwin's status as an anarchist seems to be based on original research by Kropotkin. As far as I can see, before K's Britannica article people considered Godwin a liberal. K's article does not claim Godwin was an anarchist, only that he "formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism." But other people, liberal and minarchist, have formulated anarchist ideas without being anarchist. Hell, Étienne de la Boétie formulated some anarchist ideas in 1548! It seems that some later anarchist historians have exaggerated or misunderstood K's comment and bestowed anarchist status on Godwin. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any harm in pointing out that Godwin was a minarchist. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You ask "how soon do you have to believe anarchy is possible, in order to qualify as an anarchist?" I think you missed my point. There is a difference between accepting the reality that anarchism will not prevail for a long time, and saying that government is justified until people are sufficiently wise and evolved. As I understand Proudhon, being a realitic and practical man, believed the former, but never the latter! Godwin, however, believed the latter. Granted, it is often hard to tell which position some historical people take judging from their writings. ] 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Weasel words == |
|
|
|
|
|
"one of the main areas of disagreement" - says who? Is this the only opinion in existence? |
|
|
|
|
|
"according to need" - says how many modern anarchists? Is this the only opinion for collective distribution? |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ]''']''' 15:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Exactly, the main areas of disagreement are centred on types of action - violence, political involvement, individual transformation, collective action, etc. Economic arrangements in an anarchist society are theorising and recognised as such by most active anarchists. In other words, get their first and then figure out how to organise it. The arguments against "anarcho"-capitalism are as marginal as "anarcho"-capitalists are. ] 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A-c, I don't think you undersatnd modern (left) anarchists very well. There is no doctrine saying "people should get what they need". The world produces a surplus of what it needs - that is certain. Collective distribution is just that - people get stuff distributed approximately evenly. In principle, this should ''more than'' satisfy their needs. Having "accroding to their needs" is inaccurate and misleading, and misrepresenting left anarchism. -- ]''']''' 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:"According to their needs" doesn't mean or imply any one rigorous formula for the benefits, just that it is somehow defined with relevant reference to need. It could mean "they get their needs + 0.1* value of their production", or "they are guaranteed half of what they need", etc. Given the different ways in which the term is used, this is a good enough level of generality for the passage, I think. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::(edit conflict) But it's not simply "according to their needs" at all. The communist formula is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", but Kropotkin clarified that it meant distribution that focused on fullfilling needs ''first'' and then tastes and pleasure equally afterwards. "According to their needs" is the minimum standard of communism, not the entirety. ] 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What does that have to do with my post? ] 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As distribution "according to need" is an incomplete description of the economic concepts of anarchist communists, it is clearly not a good enough level of generality. ] 08:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And like I said above, "according to need" does not necessarily mean "need" is the only consideration. ] 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It strongly implies it. There are much better phrases to be used; I will think of one to suggest. -- ]''']''' 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's not as exact as that. How do you even measure needs, or say that one person "has twice the needs of another"? The general principle of collective distribution is to provide a more even distribution of wealth, more akin to the ] (which models everything in nature, including human needs) rather than an ]. -- ]''']''' 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hmmm, that's only in a post-scarcity situation where the needs of all are covered. As I say above, ensuring people's actual fundamental needs are covered is a minimum standard, even if they are unequal. A small child doesn't need the same amount of food as an adult, so an adult shouldn't go short to provide the child with more than they need. ] 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Distributing "according to need" is a problem for anarcho-communists, but it is their positition. Like you said, "How do you even measure needs"? Anarcho-capitalists leave that to individual decision. I decide for myself what I need and don't need, and I'm not going to let you expropriate anything from me if you think I have more than I need and that someone else needs it more. I will not submit to the authority of the "anarcho"-communist.] 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yeah. That's my problem with it, too. Even if there's no government per say, there's still an authority in the collective will. And as long as there's any authority, there's no freedom. I would rather have it left to the goodness of my heart to give to those who had less in the event that I had more (or vice versa). ] 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Wrong doctor. you forget that anarchists believe in free association and decentralized organization which preempt your supposed "collective will." if you don't want to be part of a collectivist community than you are free to leave and live by yourself or in a more individualist community where the "goodness of heart to give to others" is your only concern. anarchism isn't about destroying all authority, its about destroying hierachical and exploitative authority, usually being identified by anarchists as governments and capitalism. ancap, distributing "according to need" is not a problem for ancoms at all. there is no need to have a formal or metered measure of need. a community existing outside of capitalism and exploitative authority, in Chiapas right now por exemplo, generally does pretty well at fairly distributing goods based on need. this can be seen rather clearly in many indigenous american, australian, african, and polynesian societies prior to colonization. ] 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's not true according to Kropotkin. He advocates expropriation, as do most other "anarcho"-communists. It's not true according to experience either. The Spanish anarchists violently confiscated everyone's money, executed people, and tried to force an "anarchist" system on everyone. I don't believe for a second that "anarcho"-communism is compatible with liberty. They will forcefully forbid people from taking land as private property in an "anarcho-communist" system. "Anarcho"-communism just isn't "anarcho."] 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I was going to ignore you, but this is disgraceful rubbish. '''It was a war.''' The Spanish ''anarchists'' were the majority of the population in the regions they controlled. The economic situation that preceded the revolution was virtual feudalism, which could only be reversed through massive expropriation. No former feudal society has fully emerged without violent expropriation. Traitors are often executed during a war, it's one of the horrible facts of war, which is why most anarchists oppose war. The executions by anarchists pale into insignificance when compared to the mass murder carried out by Franco's forces. As for trying to ''force'' a system on everyone, I say again, anarchists made up the majority. The CNT/FAI was a mass movement. The majority has every right to create a new system and the rich have no right to complain that their elitist position has ended. The Spanish anarchists were not perfect, but compared to the murderous fascists, the traitorous Stalinists and the useless Republicans, they were heroes. ] 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was attempting to ignore such ridiculous logic as well but am glad you did not Donnacha as your responce is well-informed. also, ancap, expropriation is not the same thing as reapropriation, which you have recently argued that ancaps support i believe. at any rate, most anarchists believe in ends and means which is what the actions of the Spanish anarchists were. they were taking property and money back from the many exploitative institutions that had robbed them since before feudal times. these included the clergy and religious establishment as well as the industrialists and the "aristocracy." that is reapropriation and a totally seperate issue from "to eac according to need." ] 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:''Distributing "according to need" is a problem for anarcho-communists, but it is their positition.'' - this is not true. Donnacha explains very well above what their position really is. -- ]''']''' 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*""Need will be put above service," Kropotkin wrote; "it will be recognized that everyone who cooperates in production to a certain extent has in the first place that right to live comfortably." Underpinning this view was the conviction that technology had advanced to a point where everyone's needs could be satisfied. The famous communist maxim, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs," would be the rule for guiding distribution immediately after the revolution."" (Bookchin, Murray. The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936, p. 104) The author, Bookchin, who is explaining Kropotkin, is an "anarcho"-communist too.] 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::*"The Conquest of Bread, however, also reflects the more specific form of anarchism which Kropotkin esoused, called anarchist communism...Anarchist communism called for the socialization not only of production but of the distribution of goods: the community would supply the subsistence requirements of each individual member free of charge, and the criterion, 'to each according to his labor' would be superseded by the criterion 'to each according to his needs.'" (Introduction to Kropotkin: The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings, by Marshall Shatz) |
|
|
|
|
|
The line "There are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism which all emphasize their points of difference." is baffling to me. Is that actually supposed to mean what it says? That all anarchists emphasize difference? What about anarchism-without-adjectives (very possibly the dominant tradition)? What about the anarchist movement at large, which emphasizes solidarity, not difference? Either the statement is obviously bunk, or it needs to be weakened to accommodate for reality. ] 13:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's complete bunk. Most anarchists seek to work together in coalitions, communists and collectivists, in particular, generally work hand in hand. While anarchist ''theorists'' tend to disagree, that's the purpose of theorists. I read Bookchin's critique of ''lifestyle anarchism'' and it led me straight to reading Hakim Bey. Theorists write theory, anarchists live in the real world absolutely aware that theoretical discussions have minimal value in activism. Let the people of the future decide how they want to live, theories are just suggestions. Once again, the issue with "anarcho"-capitalism is what it fails to oppose, which is a different issue. It's not theoretical that "anarcho"-capitalists advocate private security to stop redistribution of land. It's not theoretical that "anarcho"-capitalists support the bosses instead of the workers. This is a difference that needs to be emphasizes, others do not. ] 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's not "bunk" at all. Communists emphasize their differences with individualists. Individualists emphasize their differences with communists, and so on. That's what makes them the type of anarchists they are.] 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::By the way, I reject your false dichotomy between "bosses and workers." Everybody at a business is a worker.] 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The statement makes it sound as if there's precisely designed "schools of thought" that emphasize difference. That is incorrect. Certainly, when individualist anarchism existed, the movement was partly divisive. Of course, even then there were people like de Cleyre who emphasized solidarity. Today, there is no individualist anarchism movement. Movement anarchisms ''do'' work in solidarity with one another today. They don't "emphasize difference". The statement makes it sound as if anarchists are all opposed to one another, where in reality the only conflict is between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Definitely, anarchists emphasize their differences with anarcho-capitalism. Anarchists might acknowledge differences but emphasize their similarities. That's why there is an anarchist movement, rather than an "anarcho-communist movement" or a "primitivist movement". Different strands of anarchism recognize that they all share the same general goal and emphasize that rather than squabbling over semantics. (For that matter, the reason most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as anarchism is because the goal of that philosophy is practically 180 degrees of the shared goal of all other anarchists.) ] 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, I'd disagree slightly with the statement that there is no individualist anarchist movement. It's not organised, as such, but both ] and ] are very much from the individualist tradition and have many (I wouldn't call them followers, but) adherents. There are considerable numbers of ''drop-out'' individualist anarchists who prefer to live anarchy within their own sphere rather than attempting to create anarchy outside. This strand has its roots very much in the counter-culture of the 60s and emphasises the social elements rather than the economic elements of the earlier individualists (from Thoreau onwards). These individualist ideas have nothing to do with "anarcho"-capitalism and would absolutely reject the negative focus contained within it. ] 19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Do you have a source for Hakim Bey, the pedophile, indicating he is an "individualist anarchist"?] 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Sure, anarcho-capitalism is "practically 180 degrees of the shared goal of all other anarchists." Almost all other anarchists are communists. Likewise, anarcho-communism is 180 degrees of the shared goal of all other anarchists. And, you made my point. Different form of anarchism do emphasize their differences. Anarcho-communists emphasize their differences from anarcho-capitalists, and anarcho-capitalists emphasis their differences from anarcho-communists. "Anarchists without adjectives" emphasize their difference that they don't support or oppose any particular economic system, as the other forms do. A school of anarchism cannot exist unless they emphasize their points of difference. There has to be something that makes them unique from all the others.] 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Anarchists only emphasize their difference from anarcho-capitalists in the same way they emphasize their difference with fascism or Stalinism. Since they don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as anarchist they're not, from their perspective, emphasizing their difference with another form of anarchism. They're noting a distinction from a completely unrelated political philosophy. And you're absolutely wrong about anarchism without adjectives. That term was developed as a means of bringing anarchists together under the word anarchist. Most anarchist without adjectives DO hold a personal sense of what economic arrangements are necessary, they just don't want to classify themselves in terms of their economic opinions because they realize it is divisive to the movement as a whole. Practically all anarchists without adjectives are anti-capitalist. Obviously those anarchists have just as strong an opinion regarding economics as any other anarchist, they just recognize that that sort of squabbling is counterproductive and that it's better to label generally rather than specifically. You are right in suggesting that different "schools" emphasize differences. But they also emphasize solidarity, and how it's worded at present it's unclear. ] 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I understand that anarcho-communist opposition to anarcho-capitalism includes allegations taht we're not true anarchists. But it goes both ways. I, as a capitalist anarchist, don't think anarcho-communists are true anarchists. I think they're authoritarians in disguise. I emphasize the differences of my philosophy from all other types of anarchism, including "pseudo-anarchism" (which is what Tucker called anarcho-communism). "Anarcho"-communists do not respect private ownership of the product of labor, so the last thing I want is "solidarity" with them. I'm dead set against them.] 04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Ditto and solidarity with you, Anarcho-capitalism. ] 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't believe for a second that "anarcho"-communism is compatible with liberty. They will forcefully forbid people from taking land as private property in an "anarcho-communist" system." said "Anarcho-Capitalism" |
|
|
|
|
|
First off, anarcho-communists "forbid" people from taking land as private property about the same way a person "forbids" someone else from shooting another person. A person can only make land private property in 2 ways: 1) Find unoccupied land and set up borders and perimeters deciding how far his "ownership" of the land will extend. Of course, what is to stop other people from taking the land as well? Obviously he will need defense associations (ie. a State) to enforce "his" property against other people. 2) Find land that people already reside on and acquire control and ownership of the land over the other people who live on it. Either way, this absolutely contrary to liberty because this is little more than individuals imposing their will upon other people by creating their own little fiefdoms and reigning with authority over the people who reside in it. It's basically a one-person totalitarian State. |
|
|
|
|
|
In an Anarcho-Communist society, you're free to walk up to any old plot of land, plant a stake in it and shout, "THIS IS MY LAND!" all you want. However, when people cross on it, if you try to force them to pay you tolls for doing so, or if you try to force them to work for you if they want to use the resources on the land, or use hired thugs to guard the shops and deny them access to it, don't be surprised if you get a visit from the community militia warning you about impinging upon other people's freedoms. Why the hell would anyone work for you to guard private land anyway? If there is no State, currency has no value. Thus, $10,000,000 might as well be 10,000,000 seashells. And why the hell would people willingly subject themselves to a private landlord instead of taking it for themselves? In an Anarcho-Communist society, the land would be free and available to everyone for them to farm, produce on, build shops and workplaces on, etc. to their liking. Everyone would be free to produce as they want and need (for survival) and would have free access to all the consumer products. No private landlords restricting their access or private employers to work for and sacrifice their freedom to. This is exactly the kind of society that Catalonia and parts of Hungary during the Hungarian Revolution were. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anarcho-Communism is indeed compatible with liberty. In fact, IMHO it is the ultimate consistent application of both negative and positive liberty. Everyone is free to meet their needs and wants, and no one is forced or coerced under the authority of private owners. I can't say the same for "Anarcho"-Capitalism. Saying that destroying private property and making property (productive property, not possessions like cars, houses, toasters, televisions, etc.) accessible to all is somehow against freedom is like saying that allowing everyone free access to Krispy Kreme is against freedom. The "freedom" in private property is freedom for the private owner to control people without property. Private property is the most basic form of State and tolitarian rule for those who are not the owner of the property. Why would anyone want to pay $5.00 for 6 donuts (or however much the owner decides to charge) in an "Anarcho"-Capitalist society when they could go to Krispy Kreme and get as many donuts as they want for no cost in an Anarcho-Communist society? ] 11:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
""Anarcho"-communists do not respect private ownership of the product of labor, so the last thing I want is "solidarity" with them." said "Anarcho-Capitalism" |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we oppose private ownership of the product of labor for the same reason we oppose the State, it's authoritarian in nature and a detriment to human freedom. It takes freedom away from some (or many) and gives ABSOLUTE freedom (as in the ability to take freedom away from other people) to a few. Private property is the basis of State. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau would say, "You forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one." ] 12:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputes about which schools are not anarchist II == |
|
|
Isn't it not hypocritical for an anarchist to claim a monopoly upon anarchist thought and decide what is and what isn't 'true' anarchism based upon his own personal whims? There are many forms of anarchism, just as there are many forms of statism, so let's show that panarchy can work and stop fighting over words. We all want the same things in the end e.g. the end of the state; we simply have different ideas on how to achieve those goals. --] 00:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, it's hypocritical to repeat the same reductionist nonsense that has been roundly rejected by all but the "anarcho"-capitalists. Anarchists wasnt the end of the state ''and'' the end of all forms of coercive authority, including capitalism. Anti-capitalism is inconsistent with capitalism, it's that simple. There's no monopoly, unity of opposition is possible and regularly carried out with groups with similar aims. The point is that the extreme neofeudalism "anarcho"-capitalists want is ''not'' a similar aim, it's the absolute antithesis of anarchism. ] 08:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Who Cares?!?''' Do anarcho-capitalists claim to be anarchists in a notable way? If so, the article should state that they do by giving the same reasons that they do, and citing sources. If some other faction (notably) claims that they are not, then the article should state that either here or in the anarcho-capitalism article, and cite sources. We are not here to promote or defend the stance of any faction of anarachist, or anything else, but to simply organize the information given us by other sources. This information will speak for itself. What we should be discussing is a) Which claims are notable? b) Which claims are more appropriate for a different page? c) Which sources should be cited, if multiples exist? etc..etc... Verifiability shouldn't be much of an issue -- if it has a source, keep it, if it doesn't, look for one, and if one cannot be found, delete it.--] 08:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You're missing the point of the disputes here. The extreme minority position in "anarcho"-capitalist, yet they've consistently tried to change the entire article to fit them. It's not about a section on "anarcho"-capitalism, it's about the fundamental description of anarchism in the introductory paragraph. Either a) anarchism is anti-capitalist, thus "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism, or b) the emergence of "anarcho"-capitalism changed the nature of anarchism to include capitalism. Option b), which is the consistent POV pushed by the "anarcho"-capitalists is intolerable on every level, it's intellectually ridiculous, politically irresponsible and utterly unacceptable to anarchists worldwide. Either an end is put to the POV-pushing, or these arguments will run and run. ] 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Ah. I apologise for merely skimming the most recent discussion. It just appeared that you were speaking as an anarchist rather than an encyclopaedia writer. I agree that option b is not desirable, but I still think that a compromise could be better than option a, if possible. From my understanding of the subject (aka from reading the article), anarchism is not defined as anti-capitalist, but as shown through history, many anarchists have found the aims of capitalism to be at odds with theirs.--] 09:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The article is not a good place to start! Every form of anarchism through history, from Godwin, through Proudhon, Bakunin, Spooner, Tucker, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta, etc, has been defined by its opposition to economic as well as political hierarchies. It has ''always'' been a defining element. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a cuckoo, an attempt by right-wingers to appropriate the term in a way that every anarchist before them would reject. I'd recommend you read for the most detailed argument (which will become a source for the article once it's published in book form and the ancaps can't reject it). ] 10:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks. I don't understand how you're planning on using that link as a source, as it seems to do nothing but quote Rothbard explain that he is wrong, but it was very helpful revealing the scope of the topic to me. If I'm interpreting this correctly, I'm thinking that anarcho-capitalism is ''like'' anarchism is that a-c rejects man ruling over man, while anarchism in general rejects anything ruling over anything, and that difference in the fundamental prevents the two ideologies from agreeing on pretty much anything else. So if I'm thinking right, then it would be safe to say that a-c fulfills ''part'' of the definition of anarchism, or something. That's OR, obviously, anyway, but let me know if I'm even understanding what anarchism is. (Also, should we copy this over to a new heading? I got us off topic...)--] 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The FAQ is more than the section on "anarcho"-capitalism, but has been rejected as a source because it's not published. It shall soon be. As for fulfilling ''part'' of the definition, that means it's, therefor, not anarchism. I'll repeat my comparison with a car. A car is defined as a motorised vehicle with four, and sometimes three, wheels. If someone decides they've invented a car with two wheels, they might call it a car, but everyone else will point out that two-wheeled motorised vehicles are called motorbikes and laugh at them. When a bunch of right-wing libertarians (most anarchists have ceded that term to them and only use it with a suffix) decide to call themselves anarchists, anarchists rightly laugh at them and point out that they've already stolen one term and they're not stealing another. It's ironic that a bunch of people who oppose expropriation in the real world are happy to do it in the world of language. Anarchism is defined by anarchists, not by rightwing wrecking upstarts nor by lazy academics who can't tell the difference between the two. ] 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The thing is that a large amount of the academic community (see Google Scholar) see anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. The only publications that do not, are self-published books or articles by marginal printing houses. I have already put forth academic sources that say that the ''only'' thing anarchism seems to have in common as the lower common denominator is that it rejects the state. On everything else, there is no agreement. ] 09:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Ok, thanks for explaining the situation to me. I'd like to help you all work on the article, but I'd probably have to go learn more about the subject first. When I get some free time I'll try to read through some of the sources you have already.--] 09:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"and the end of all forms of coercive authority, including capitalism." You're talking about state corporate capitalism and not the free market Donnacha. Anarcho capitalism doesn't support state capitalism so stop using a straw man Donnacha. We do not live in a free market.--] 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm talking about any system based on private ownership of the means of production, wage slavery and hierarchial workplace organisation. Not state capitalism, but all capitalism - in the sense used by all anarchists - communist, collectivist, individualist or without adjectives - in other words, the thing that makes "anarcho"-capitalism a blatant oxymoron. ] 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::No such thing as "wage slavery." There's is nothing oxymoronic to allow people to enter into any sort of contract they wish. I never consider myself a "wage slave" if I go to work for someone else. I do it voluntarily, and you're trying to tell me it's involuntary, which is insane. Benjamin Tucker even said he supports the right of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Or Lysander Spooner: "And if the laborer own the stone, wood, iron, wool, and cotton, on which he bestows his labor, lie is the rightful owner of the additional value which his labor gives to those articles. But if he be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors."] 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::"Any sort of contract they wish" is very different from ''the best sort of contract they can find''. The first is a market utopia. The second is probably what we're stuck with under any sort of market anarchism, but it is possible to work for conditions under which the ''worst'' sort of contract available might be pretty good. The question is whether anarcho-capitalists have any interest in that kind of struggle, when they abstractly dismiss even the ''possibility'' of exploitation. Tucker, btw, had his own sort of class analysis, and his "defense" of wages was predicated on the desire to see ''absolutely everyone'' dependent on them. In that, he really was something of a mutualist in the older sense. ] 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::When Benjamin Tucker was asked if the hypothetical situation of a person in a boat offering to save a drowing person only under the condition that he sold all his wordly belongings to him was invasion, he said no. It was a voluntary contract. Though it is truly a voluntary contract, I don't think there are very many anarcho-capitalists would not think that was "exploitative," or at least reprehensible. But the solution to lowering costs of goods and services is competition. The solution is not to abolish contract altogether like the "anarcho"-communists propose. In a competitive market, it is very difficult to take seriously the claim that people are being exploited.] 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also, you're wrong that anarcho-capitalists "advocate private security to stop redistribution of land." Anarcho-capitalists do not believe all land held day is in the hands of the legitimate owners, and would be happy to expropriate it to return it to the voluntary sector. You haven't read Rothbard have you?] 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also anarchists without adjectives don't oppose anarcho-capitalism. By definition, they don't support or oppose any particular econonomic system.] 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::All anarchist movements (like all movements) have been made up of people, in specific historical settings, rather than by the embodiments of abstract concepts or dictionary definitions. Anarchism without adjectives was about extending solidarity to all anarchists, but not necessarily to all who would call themselves anarchists. The Voltairine de Cleyre quotes about the "hell" of capitalism suggest the limits of that solidarity in her time. This "by definition" stuff doesn't cut it. When sufficient counter-evidence has been given, it's simply falsification of history. ] 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Capitalism" is not "anarcho-capitalism." When old anarchists were talking about "capitalism" they were not talking about anarcho-capitalism and had never even heard of a free market being referred to as "anarcho-capitalism." It definitely cannot be assumed that opposition to "capitalism" is also opposition to "anarcho-capitalism." Anarcho-capitalism is an economic system, not a state system, so according to the definition anarchists without adjectives, they do not oppose anarcho-capitalism.] 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::True. Anarcho-capitalism is a johnny-come-lately. However, as the discussions throughout the movement suggest, an-cap has still not sufficiently distanced itself from the capitalism we all know to make much of a difference. In fact, we have the testimony of Chuck0, a contemporary anarchist-without-adjectives, on these pages, suggesting that he, at least, opposes anarcho-capitalism. And Chuck0 has heard pretty much all the arguments for an-cap. Anyway, you've shifted stances here, and are now defending different ground than you were just up the page. ] 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm defending what different ground?] 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Chuck0 is not an anarchist without adjectives. He says he is, but he's not. Anarchists without adjectives don't support or oppose any particular economic system.] 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::wrong. anarchists without adjectives generally do have personal beliefs regarding what the ideal anarchist society would look like, they just don't believe that economic theories should prevent anarchists of differing positions from working together. most feel that once government and AND capitalism are destroyed than many different theories will be put into practice in different communities. this is clear from the writings of prominent awoas and through simple observation. While they would acknowledge the right of ancaps to exist, they might not necesariy agree with their beliefs. you are twisting the meaning of awoa. I am an anarchist without adjectives and i oppose anarcho-capitalism. while in an anarchist society i would not force a community or individual to not be ancap i would not personally engage in any discourse (like trade or federation) with ancaps nor would i want my community to do so. ] 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You're not an anarchist without adjectives if you oppose any particular economic system. You oppose anarcho-capitalism therefore you're not an anarchist without adjectives. An anarchist without adjectives is simply not concerned one way or the other which economic system evolves if the state is gone. By the way, to think that capitalism wouldn't happen if the state disappeared is really naive. The state is the only thing that prevents anarcho-capitalism from happening. In the absence of the state and "anarcho"-communists to steal the product of others' labor, anarcho-capitalism would encompass the entire world. ] 18:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm glad you know what i am better than i do. actually, it is you who do not understand anarchism without adjectives. to say that voltarine de clerye or errico malatesta or rudolf rucker was "simply not concerned one way or the other which economic system evolves if the state is gone" demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. i used to think you a well-informed and somewhat amiable editor, i see now that is not the case. By the way, believing that just because you say something makes it either right or convincing to other editors here is very naive. especially considering that most anarchists think that it is the capitalists who are the ones who "steal the product of others labor." ] 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Very funny. Anarcho-capitalism is the philosophy that most strongly opposes stealing the product of labor of others. It is anarcho-communnists who advocate stealing the product of the labor of others in adovcating expropriation of any product that is more than they think a person "needs." And they condemn others for selling their surplus on the market instead of giving it away for free. ANarcho-communism is simply an philosophy of entitlement to the product of the labor of others. In other words, a philosophy for thieves. ] 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::And, Cleyre and other anarchists without adjectives did not oppose anarcho-capitalism. She oppose "capitalism" which she understood to be a state system. She had never heard of anarcho-capitalism. She said that for individualist anarchists, that "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." I think pretty much everyone here would call that anarcho-capitalism.] 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Donnacha wrote: "Either a) anarchism is anti-capitalist, thus "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism, or b) the emergence of "anarcho"-capitalism changed the nature of anarchism to include capitalism." This seems to omit other options. E.g. c) anarchism is anti-capitalist, thus anarcho-"capitalism" is anti-capitalist. d) anarchism is anti-authoritarian, but historically most anarchists have mistakenly believed that private property is intrinsically authoritarian when, properly interpreted, it is not. Considering that in the 19th century "capitalism" meant concentration of capital in the hands of a few state-privileged people, c seems reasonable using that old definition. Looking at the discussion, I would say most anarcho-capitalists here are saying something close to d. Here's a piece on this: ] 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually De Cleyre said this "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism". So she was certainly anti-communist and anti-socialist. That statement is quite clear. I consider myself to be an anarchist without adjectives. And no one can tell me how I feel about the economics in a possible anarchism, either. I personally have a problem, particularly with collectivism, but I also have some problems with anarcho-capitalism as well, such as the private court systems and police. ] 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually we have already had long discussions regarding de clerye which you can see by scrolling up the discussions page. i will not repeat the multitude of quotes in which she espouts socialist beliefs as you will find them above. her beliefs as an anarchist evolved throughout her life, and you can certianly take anything out of context. her writings finished around the time of her death betray socialist sympathies. furthermore, i suspect that you are another clone of thewolfstar/maggie/lingeron/whiskeyrebellion/etc. ] 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is the bickeringest page I've seen yet. ] 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's because people believe strongly in anarchism and the "anarcho"-capitalists have no idea how to compromise or even to argue consistent positions (ref: ], ] & ] as well as the above). ] 23:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You just said these users: ], ] & ] have debated here. I haven't found any of these users here. So what are you talking about? Sorry, I'm not following you. ] 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That's because all three have been permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. ] 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Banned mainly for the crap they got up to here and continued to get up to with sockpuppets even after they were banned (and they, particularly thewolfstar, continue to pop up - like the latest proven sock ] above). ] 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I clicked on that link to ] and this is what it says '' It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Thewolfstar.'' So I'm not so sure about the 'proven' part. It's funny that these banned users are all anarcho-capitalists. How do you account for that? Strange coincidence. ] 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::RJII isn't exactly an anarcho-capitalist. And in his case, he admitted on his own profile that multiple people, including a "research team", were using his account in order to push POV. Hogeye has one of the longest histories of abuse in the history of Misplaced Pages, including vandalism of research templates and malicious behavior such as his "anarchist dildo" template, not even to mention his tens of sockpuppets, many of whom he didn't bother to operate covertly, and sometimes even signed under his own name. These users have all been banned by people who aren't anarchists and who aren't directly involved in this article. If you are suggesting corruption, you can offer a substantive complaint at ]. But to be honest, it's good for this article to have anarcho-capitalist contributors so as to better mediate the content of the article. The problem is when we have people who aren't willing to come to a compromise or insert minority POVs and slant the weight of the article without discussion. Of these three users, RJII was probably the easiest to deal with, and he turned out to actually be a think tank for researching POV to insert on Misplaced Pages. ] 03:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Thanks for your response. I wasn't suggesting anything, just wondering, that's all. I guess there's all kinds of ideas about anarchism. I consider myself to be an anarchist some of the time and some of the time not. I haven't found one school that I agree with completely yet. But I appreciate your answering my questions. :) ] 04:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"And they condemn others for selling their surplus on the market instead of giving it away for free." said "Anarcho-Capitalism" |
|
|
|
|
|
Who are the "others" who sell their surplus on a market? Are you talking about producers selling their product or the owner? People sell their product on the market in a capitalist system because that is the only way they can make money. And if they don't make money, they can't eat. People sell their labor in a market system because of inherent market pressures and coercive market forces, not because they up and decide to sell stuff just because they feel like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, when people sell in a capitalist market, they sell the product for more than it costed to produce it. That is a form of exploitation because it is forcing other people to pay more than an item is worth. People on the market who buy the product are at the mercy of those who sell because those who sell are the ones hoarding products. It would be like if you made a cave into a candy factory and sold the candy down to everyone below in the valley. What entitles you to have absolute ownership over that cave and force everyone else to pay for what is produced in it? If anything, the private owner is a thief because they have stolen something (land) which was not owned by making it their own possession out of the hands of everyone else. If I found a soccer ball, what would you do if I would only allow you to touch it if you paid me? Who am I to deny you access to the ball? What makes it "mine"? As Proudhon said, "Property is theft". Anarcho-capitalism is thievery of property on the belief that some people are entitled to the means of subsistence and should hoard it then sell products from it for a price on a market of propertyless consumers. ] 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The owner is also a thief becuase he "steals" the profit made from selling the product that was produced through the toil of the labor. Capitalists argue that the profit the owner(s) makes is their premium for assuming the risk of operating a business, but how much risk is there really? if the business goes under the owner is protected by bankruptcy laws. (s)he still gets to keep all the shit bought with their inflated salary. if the business is organized as a corporation, which most are, than the owner(s) is protected from most liability in civil courts as the corporation is considered under western law to be an individual and therefore assumes any liability rather than the owner. you could argue that the owner risks the money he initially invested in the business but most of the startup costs would have come from notes, loans, and equity sales and therefore be covered by the bankruptcy laws. capitalists don't pay us to make their products/services, rather, we pay them (in the form of the profit they take from our labor) to tell us what to do. sorry, just a rant. ] 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::You overlook that getting a job is voluntary. If you want to make more money then go to work for yourself. People get a job because they won't want to deal with hassle of running a business or they just don't have enough ambition to start one. Getting a job is easier than creating your own job. It's the lazy man's way to make a living. If you go to work for someone you have sold your labor and its product. As Lysander Spooner said, "if be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors." So since you have sold your labor and the product thereof, there is no reason why you should think that your employer is doing something wrong when he sells the product of labor when you applied your labor to his own property at any price the market will pay. If the employer decides to sell the product at cost what difference would it make? You would still have gotten the same pay. Why would anything be stolen from you if he sells for a profit but not if he sells without a profit, if you're getting the same pay? Your whole assumption, and the assumption of all the left anarchists, is that there is some "proper" price of things, but there's not. Value is subjective. There is no possible way to determine an objective value of anything.] 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Spoken like a true capitalist. And for your information, i did create my own job- i started a homebrew collective. i understand, as you seem not to, that not everyone has the same resources to begin with and so the playing field is not level. people dont sell their labor because of laziness or lack of ambition, but becuase it is the societal norm that has been propagated by the capitalist class and its supportive institutions. for someone who claims to believe in the dissemination of anarchist ideas via education, you certianly don't seem to be very aware of the effects of lack of education and deliberate miseducation. come here to georgia and tell me everyone has an equal oppurtunity to "start their own business." You've gotta be cracked to really think that down here. Essentially, the difference in our beliefs is that you believe in helping yourself while i believe in helping others. ] 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Spoken like a true anti-individualist. You think that things should be fair, in the sense of everyone having the same amount of wealth to start with. Sorry, but that's not how the world works or how it will ever work, nor should it ever work that way. Individuals have different talents and different levels of motivation. There is nothing wrong with one person starting with nothing and another starting with something. Unequal wealth is the natural result of liberty. As Benjamin Tucker said: "If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living." You can only equalize wealth (and bargaining power) through authority. You're upset that the next guy is richer than you. So what? He's not harming you. Get busy and get rich yourself by producing something of value for society instead of moaning about inequality. Create jobs. That's the way to help people.] 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You keep quoting Tucker in this context, but remember that he really did want ''equitable'' conditions. "Stop whining" is not an individualist anarchist response. Wealth in itself is not harmful. But, to the extent that concentrations of wealth tend to interfere with the free workings of the market, directly through holding capital out of circulation and indirectly by influencing government regulation, there is harm precisely of the sort that market anarchists ought to oppose. I think you and I would both prefer a world in which entrepreneurship was simply an option, essentially the same as choosing to work for wages. As someone who has been a small business owner and a contractor, it seems clear to me that we are not living in that world. As someone who works multiple jobs, I'm not all that excited about the prospect of simply creating ''more'' jobs under the same general conditions. The Democrats and Republicans can and do call for "job creation." The anarchist response has to go a little deeper. ] 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The "equitable conditions" Tucker wanted was equal liberty, not equal wealth. Anarcho-capitalists are against state protection of capital from competition. So, you're not arguing against anarcho-capitalism. So, you refuse to create jobs because of what the Republicans and Democrats say? That's a copout. Someone needs to create jobs. Either you do it, or wait for someone else to take the trouble so that you don't have to (the easy way out).] 19:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Oh, stuff and bother. I won't defend a bunch of position I didn't take. I say "go a little deeper" and you say "cop out." ''Sigh''. Tucker understood that unequal wealth could create unequal liberty. Initially, he believed that if you took the power of the four monopolies away from those possessing concentrations of capital, that the market could function in a way that would gradually create equal liberty. Later, he came to doubt that. When Tucker talks about wanting ''everyone'' to have to work for wages, he is talking about an equity of conditions that he came to consider incompatible with at least some degrees of wealth inequality. These days, Kevin Carson is more optimistic about the chances of market self-correction, but he understands the obstacles as more than just four monopolies. By the time we removed subsidies and entitlements to business, we would have a very different sort of market than we do now. It might not yet be the "free market" of the classical models or mutualist dreams, but it would be significantly different than what we have now. Under ''those'' potential future conditions, it ''might'' be possible to simply say, "Hey, dude, make a job." But we're not living in a free market now. That's why we bother to be anarchists. ] 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"Tucker understood that unequal wealth could create unequal liberty." That's only true if you mean that in the sense that he thought the very wealthy could purchase special favors from the state. As far as creating jobs, I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to your fatalism. I am not going to use my opposition to the state and regulation in order to justify my not creating jobs or my laziness. I know damned well that I can create jobs, and I most likely will (and I'm far far from being wealthy). If you don't think you can then I think you might have a self-esteem problem. You don't know your potential. The economy in the US is far from being as free as it should be, but that is no excuse for sitting on your hands. Take advantage of what freedom we do have.] 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Actually, Tucker came to believe that some concentrations of capital ''by themselves'' could create inequalities the market forces alone would not simply melt. I'll dig the sources up. Anyway, you're off to Tangentland again with the "sit on your hands" stuff. Let me turn the issue around. If ''you'' think that ''all that is needed'' is for entrepreneurs to "create jobs," and you think that good quality jobs can be created by anyone who ''really tries'' and doesn't suffer from psychological problems, then you don't ''seem'' to be advocating any sort of alternative to existing capitalism. Sure, you'll clean it up a bit. Get the State out of the game, but all this stuff about the possibility of structural coercion or economic equity doesn't really concern you much. This is where some an-caps continue to confuse me. They seem pretty happy with historical capitalism. They seem to buy into the whole "productivity of capital" thing, dressed up as "time preference" and such. It's weird to watch self-proclaimed "anarchists" ''of any variety'' go out of their way to defend inequality. It's weird because I suspect (how shall I put this) a certain ''inflation'' of self-esteem is driving the politics, a feeling of personal entitlement through superior intelligence or talent. Rich guys are rich cause they can be. Why don't we say the same about powerful folks. If you want to get more freedom, why don't you just take it? Anyway, isn't freedom just subjective? There's no way to ''measure'' freedom. Etc. '''If''' you believe what you ''appear'' to believe, then my sense is that ''equal liberty'' is going to be your last concern "after the revolution." ''That'' is the only thing that makes me question whether an-caps are "really" anarchists. The core truth of mutualism (which gets badly ignored) is that we're not in this alone. You can cope with that fact through altruistic, egoistic, or simply pragmatic means, but if you don't cope with it, then there's little or no chance you can ever act like an anarchist under conditions of freedom. ] 23:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::What "existing capitalism" are you talking about? I look at the USA and I don't see capitalism. I see a mixed economy...which means part capitalism and part socialism (in the central planning of the economy and a welfare state). A true capitalist system would be truly laissez-faire. And yes, I will go out of my way every time to defend inequality, if equality to you means equalized wealth distribution. Inequality and liberty go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. You need to read some Max Stirner, for a primer on individualism. You're obviously coming from a Marxist or Marxist-like POV that is totally alien to what true anarchism is all about - the freedom of the individual.] 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::We've been through the ''historical capitalism'' vs ''ideal capitalism'' thing already. You are the one using the minority definition, and, in any event, there should be no confusion after our lengthy exchanges. The tendency to call anyone you disagree with a "Marxist" is just lame. While we're making reading suggestions, why don't you try reading the people you are responding to? At no time have I advocated equalization of wealth, except by free market means or by the dismantling of government subsidies, protections, and entitlements to capital. As for Stirner: read him, thanks, several times, along with Walker and Badcock and various other egoists. Honestly, I think Greene is profounder on the question of individual liberty, because, for all of his extreme individualism, he doesn't start from a false social atomism. ] 17:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No one denies anarchism is about the freedom of the individual. The difference is that we believe in the freedom of individuals to strive towards their potential, while you believe in the freedom of individuals to stomp on other people and leave them hopeless. We believe in the freedom to live, while you believe in the freedom to be killed. ] 00:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Plus, ''real'' anarchists believe in maximising the freedom of ''all'', not just the elites. Absolute freedom for all is impossible, but absolute freedom for some and subjugation for the many is the very think anarchism was created to oppose. It's impossible to maximise freedom for ''all'' and preserve the extreme economic inequality of capitalism. Of course, if the ancaps actually read what Kropotkin wrote in The Conquest of Bread, or even the short quote I posted, anarchist communists are not interested in expropriating the wealth of the wealthy, just making sure everyone has what they need. Beyond that, the choice is for the individual whether they wish to join a commune or a collective or become a rugged individualist or remain a bloated elitist and watch it all slip away as the staff needed to maintain their elite status leave them up the rot. What good is a big house and garden without cleaning staff and gardeners, etc? Extreme wealth would fade away if the majority turned to communes and collectives and syndicalists took over industry. ] 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::You're not being subjugated just because someone has more wealth than you. And yes Kropotkin did advocate exporopriation. You're misinterpreting or ignoring the quotes you provided. "We do not want to rob anyone of his coat..." Exactly. He will allow you to have the basic necessities of life, but will steal everything else you have and put it into the community of goods that will be distributed "according to need." He said he will allow "a family inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space... considered necessary for that number of people." Well isn't that respectful of him? What if I want to live in a house that is larger than "necessary" for me? He will force me out. Anarcho-communism is nothing but a philosophy for thieves.] 01:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::In what way to I believe in "stomping on other people and leaving them hopeless"? And how to I believe in "the freedom to be killed." All I advocate is the freedom to own the product of one's labor and the freedom to trade it. That naturally results in unequal wealth. Not everyone works the same amount, nor does everyone create things that are of equal amount of value to society. There is nothing evil about people not having equal wealth. We are not equals. We are human beings with different talents, motivations, and creativity.] 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It would be nice to think a job is voluntary. But having enough food to live and a roof over your head are hardly "voluntary". It's a "choice" to work only in the same sense that it's a "choice" whether to eat. During the American slavery of Africans do you think many individuals would have chosen to escape given the opportunity? Probably not, seeing as they need food and shelter to survive, and would have to go without in the event of leaving the plantation. Just as those Africans were forced to the plantation due to lack of other options, so to are workers forced to work for lack of other options. It's only the illusion of a choice. When the Africans were "freed", it actually benefited the Southern capitalists. During slavery, they had to provide for the basic welfare of their property, by feeding and housing them. Afterwards, this obligation no longer existed, and they could exploit them to a much greater extent. They were forced back to work out of necessity, without any improvement in their conditions. They were "freed", but they were still slaves. Just as anyone forced into the workplace in order to sustain themselves are slaves. Eating or not eating is not a choice. ] 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You say, "It would be nice to think a job is voluntary. But having enough food to live and a roof over your head are hardly "voluntary". It's a "choice" to work only in the same sense that it's a "choice" whether to eat." Do you not realize that if no one created jobs for your to become employed that it would still be necessary for you to work to get food and put a roof over your head? How are you going to get these things? By magic? You would still have to go hunting, or grow your own food, and cut trees down to build your own house. You think think work is involuntary? It's a necessity. Growing your own food and building your own house is no more involuntary that working for someone else to get money so that you don't have to go through the trouble of doing that all for yourself. Face it. Work is a necessity to live. It's not involuntary, because life itself is voluntary. If you don't want to work, then you're free to die.] 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well of course you would. The difference is that under capitalism you're working as a slave under other people, and you're given some arbitrary compensation which is always much less than you actually generate for your employer. What I mean to say is that under capitalism, you're forced to work under capitalists. You can't work under yourself unless you're already at an economic advantage. You can't hunt and gather and be self-sufficient in a traditional sense because capitalists have proclaimed ownership of the land and all of nature and control it by force. ] 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You say, "you're given some arbitrary compensation which is always much less than you actually generate for your employer." How would you know that? Value is in the mind of the beholder. There is no way to judge if the value the employer receives is more than the value the employee receives. They both receive value. People only go to work because they value the money they recieve in exchange for working more than they value they labor they are exerting, otherwise they would not labor. And, the employer does not hire you unless he values your labor more than the money he's paying, or he would just hold on to the money. Obviously, both sides receive more value than they before they make the transaction. The satisfaction of human wants increase on both sides of the trade. As far as "proclaiming" ownership of land, you cannot be talking about anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists say land cannot come to be owned by proclaiming it or protecting it by force. Private property can only come about through labor. They do not think all land holdings today are legitimate, especially ones that involved slavery.] 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Businesses are primarily interested in profit. It's natural to take those profits from those at the bottom of their enterprise, because they have the least power to protest or negotiate wages. When businesses do become enormously successful, that success is only felt at the top of the corporation, which is where profits are distributed. People at the bottom are paid a minimum wage regardless. CEO salaries have increased in relation to those at the bottom for many years now, and continue to increase. Those at the bottom are paid the least possible amount and there's still people competing over these terrible jobs. You don't work at McDonald's because you value the money, you work at McDonald's because you want to be able to keep up with rent and grocery bills. You don't even make any money. A lot of the time, your paycheck doesn't even cover what it takes to be subsistent, to even survive. It's not about valuing money, it's about valuing your life. It's a choice between working or dying, or working through alternative economies such as prostitution, drug-dealing, or theft. If you want to stay alive, you don't have a whole lot of options. I've never heard an anarcho-capitalist state your particular perspective regarding private property. It sounds more like a mutualist perspective to me. ] 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Your premise is all wrong when you say "It's natural to take those profits from those at the bottom of their enterprise, because they have the least power to protest or negotiate wages." No "profit" is being taken from any employee. People are simply paid what others are willing to pay them, and those get paid are labor as much as they are willing. You're stuck on the labor theory of value, which is dead wrong. Yes, it's a choice between working or dying. It would still be such a choice if there were no jobs. You say you have "never heard an anarcho-capitalist state your particular perspective regarding private property." Then you don't know something very basic about anarcho-capitalism. Murray Rothbard said, "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." The state does not, and cannot, create legitimate private property. Only labor can. The state is the enemy of private property.] 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm not "stuck" on the labor theory of value. I believe in the subjective theory of value, although I believe that value is always qualitative and cannot be transformed into numbers. (i.e. I don't accept the idea of currency because that presupposes that value can be measured against a standard.) But yes, I do believe the profit is taken from them, for the simple reason that profits are being generated, and are being denied from the workers. Because those at the top control the assets generated by the corporation, profits don't find their way down. What is the fundamental difference to you between slavery and capitalism, given my analogy above? Slaves could escape the plantation, but then what? Workers can escape the workplace, but then what? Either way you have no choice but to work or die. As a worker you are given what businesses will offer, and as a slave you are given what your slaveholder will offer. Either way, you're kept to work by force- and the strongest of these forces is the will to live. ] 19:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::So if I hire you and I sell the product you worked on, I have stolen from you because I recieved more money than I paid out? How do you figure? What if I sold the product at cost? You would still have the same wage so what you're paid is unchanged one way or the other. It it your position that I should give the profits to you? Then why should I start a business in the first place? Why should I take the trouble? If that's what you require then I just won't open a business and you will have to fend for yourself by hunting, fishing, farming, and building your own home. Is that what you'd rather happen? Not everyone wants to engage in those activities. They would rather work for someone else, which is easier. Again, your complaint that you have no choice but to work or die is irrelevant. Whether businesses exist or not, you still have to work to survive. The person who offers a job to you just makes survival easier for you. Again, no one forces you to work. The necessity to work is simply part of what it means to be human. Humans cannot survive without labor. "Somebody" has to work.] 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::You must be a member of the privelaged class to suggest that people want to be repressed by bosses and corporate executives rather than work for themselves, at their own liesure. The reality is, unfortunately, that most people are unable to work for themselves because they are prevented from procuring the necessary capital, whether because they are turned down for a loan by virtue of being poor and uneducated, or because of exorbitant interest rates and bank fees (i.e. usury), or because thier vocation is not "economically viable" but nevertheless important to them and beneficial to society. Of course, if it wasn't for the monopolization of capital, which is an integral part of capitalism, people wouldn't have to beg for money in order to live their desired life. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::You also said that it is necessary to work, which is true. But it should not be necessary for somebody to squander their potential by flipping burgers at MacDonald's, just so they can pay their exploitative landlord and utility companies. The goal of communism is to effect a society in which every human being is able to reach his or her full potential, wherein people don't have to resort to menial, degrading work but are instead free to pursue their ambitions:<blockquote>"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." (] in '']'' (1845)</blockquote> |
|
|
::::::::::::-- ] 21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" right? And you complain because you think they pay is too low to work at McDonalds? *laugh* McDonalds at least pays a person for working. Anarcho-communists don't pay a person for working at all. Anarcho-communism is a complete joke.] 00:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Someone like Mr. ancap can never understand (and i dont mean comphrehend but rather truly understand) anything that we are saying to him and we can never understand what he is trying to say to us. at least, though we can't understand his ideas, our stance is to help lesson inequity, injustice, and suffering in general whereas his is to lessen the barriers to making a profit off of other's labor. ] 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::You're confused because you don't understand what "profit" is. You've got yourself convinced that profit is theft but it's not at all. You think that if you purchase something and then go and sell it on Ebay for more than you purchased it that you stole something from someone. Profit is your payment for transferring something to someone that they value. If you could not profit, you would not sell it on Ebay in the first place and the person would still be looking for what they wanted. When you profit, you do so because you are helping society. You are helping satisfy the wants in the world. I am interested in eliminating poverty in the world. The only way that can be done is through laissez-faire capitalism. It cannot be done by someone confiscating justly earned profits. Nor can it be done by bad-mouthing voluntary exchange (capitalism). And, it definitely cannot be done by abolishing trade which is the lunacy that anarcho-communists recommend.] 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::Worse, by seeking to remove the limited reforms activists have dragged from governments over the last century, such as health & safety rules, limited work hours, social welfare and unemployment support, subsidised or free healthcare, etc., the likes of Mr. ancap seek to bring about a veritable hell on earth - a return to the capitalist excesses of the early capitalist era with the social inequality and lack of freedom of feudalism. The idea that anyone would, for example, seek the destruction of the NHS in the UK to bring about "anarchy" is perverse. Localise control, yes, create a truly participatory health system, yes - destroy it by handing the whole infrastructure over to capitalists - disgusting. ] 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Wait a minute. I thought that communist-anarchism had nothing to do with Marx. How did Marx get into this? Sounds like self-contradicting to me. ] 23:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Anarchists have specific objections to Marx, that doesn't mean they all reject everything he had to say. ''Some'' of his analysis is valid (for example, Bakunin split with him specifically on the issue of the state - Kropotkin split further from his ideas over theories of value). Besides, I don't think Mr WGee would define himself as an anarchist (he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm basing that on our discussion over on the Communism article). ] 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::From what I've seen I would come to the same conclusion about WGee. He's not an anarchist. That's why I was wondering why he was throwing his Marxist rhetoric into an already over-complicated soup. ] 00:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::There's nothing wrong or contradictory about quoting Marx when discussing communism, even for an anarchist, as Donnacha explained. You characterize my quoting Marx rather negatively (e.g., "his Marxist rheotric"), even though I only quoted Marx's vision of what a communist society would look like, which is the same as the anarcho-communist vision. -- ] 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Time for a new header== |
|
|
Although my political beliefs are somewhat dynamic and complicated, my ultimate vision of a communist society is steadfast. Right now, my beliefs ''most resemble'' ], though I reject the atheism of Marxism (fitting for a practicing Catholic) and am still in the process of studying the labour theories of value in detail. That said, I respect council communism, Lexemburgism, and anarcho-communism, since they envision the same communist society, but, more importantly, limit (or, in anarcho-communism's case, abolish) coercive authority along the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
In ''Laws'', Plato said, "You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters." (I just turned 16, by the way.) Likewise, I'll wait until after I've read all the political theory I can muster before I outrightly oppose anarcho-communism or ardently advocate a libertarian variant of Marxism. My indecisiveness in labelling myself stems from that fact that, with all of this homework and my preparing for university, I don't have as much time as I'd like to read political theory. None of this is to suggest, however, that I don't know what I'm talking about in my critiques, because I have read ''a lot'' of political theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ] 01:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I commend you on your indecision :) I was the same when I was 16 and age has brought less certainty. I favour some ideas because they present me with what I personally feel is the best option, however, I remain open to real alternatives. The only thing I'm sure about is what I oppose - capitalism first and governments second, as democracy without capitalism would be far more preferrable to capitalism without democracy (which is how I'd describe the so-called Communist states).] 01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There's obviously some serious confusion happening here. The communist-anarchists can't seem to differentiate between the laissez-faire economy that the classical-liberals wanted (and anarcho-capitalism is founded on according to Rothbard), and the current exploitive monopolization and globalization that is going on now. They are distinctly different and were actually opposing forces the forming of the U.S. Laissez-faire means the state does not interfere with the economy and the running of companies. What's happening now is the exact opposite where the corporations are given all sorts of favors by the U.S. state and why they have the power that they do. Without the state enabling them the companies would not have the kind of power that they have now. But it's impossible to get this concept through to a communist-anarchist. ] 02:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It would be impossible to get that concept through to any reasonable human being, because it's complete rubbish. Communists and anarchists rebuke ''capitalism'', whatever the type—regardless of whether it's enforced by libertarians, neoconservatives, neoliberals, or contemporary social democrats. All forms of capitalism rely on the same economic foundation, and it is this foundation which communists and anarchists reject above all else. Thus, your distinctions are irrelevant to communist and anarchist critiques of capitalism. -- ] 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Anarcho-communist critique of anarcho-capitalism is complete rubbish. There is nothing wrong with engaging in trade of goods and services. Anarcho-communists advocate that people work without getting paid, and instead put their product into a pool of goods for distribution "according to need." It's ridiculous. That goes against everything we know about human nature. People naturally want to own the product of their labor. But anarcho-communists want to expropriate (steal) the products of labor if they are beyond what they feel a person "needs." And anarcho-communism goes against what we know to be the advantages of trade. When people trade, it increases the amount of satifaction of needs and does it in the most efficient way possible. Nothing remotely like anarcho-communism will ever happen. People are just too smart to regress into such nonsense.] 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::WGee says "anarchists rebuke capitalism". I'm an anarchist and I don't reject capitalism. So I guess that statement is rubbish. Also, WGee do you think you could find a nicer way to talk to people? I find it hilarious that the ones who call themselves communists - the ones that are supposed to care so much for people -- are the ones that seem to hate people the most. Talk nicely. ] 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Anarcho-capitalism, what you call "human nature" has been cultivated for centuries by capitalism and feudalism. Travel to Africa and South Asia; speak to the doctors who work for just enough to sustain themselves, when they could be working for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the West. Speak to volunteers the world over, who are driven by altruism, not by money or greed. Speak to freelance artists, philosophers, and writers, who cherish their freedom of expression more than any amount of money—many of them would rather pursue their economically inviable talents and live in material poverty than do something menial and be compensated for it. Not everyone is motivated by money or the desire to aquire more property for themselves. Some people would rather live in a society wherein the can exercise their talents freely, without being restricted by private property. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Anyway, this whole discussion has nothing to do with the article, so I suggest that we end it and move on to more productive things. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::-- ] 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Hmmm... people working without pay, to produce something which is made available to be used by all as needed? You can't imagine any such thing could ever produce anything useful, like, say, an online encyclopedia? :-) (However, I'm still pro-capitalist in that I favor the right of people to choose to engage in trade using the fruits of their labors, even if in some cases a voluntary system of sharing can produce good results as well.) ] 03:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Anarcho-capitalism allows people to do that. In an anarcho-capitalist society you would be free to work without getting paid if you wished. Anarcho-capitalists simply allow people to trade their labor for money if they choose. And if someone does choose it, they don't want the product of their labor or what they receive for it in trade stolen by anarcho-communists. Unlike anarcho-communists they do not wish to impose their morality on others.] 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Relax, for crying out loud. Communist anarchism is, after all, a system of ''voluntary association'', so nobody "steals" anything. This is '''obvious''' and in line with your own stated standards. I don't imagine you'll be joining an anarchist commune any time soon, and it's quite likely I won't either, but all of this righteously indignant stuff about the commies coming to steal your stuff is just silly. ] 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Communists seem to think they are the only ones that do good for other people without expecting compensation and even seem to think they invented altruism. People have been doing selfless acts since we've been around and it has nothing to do with what enconomic system they advocate. You can't be serious, WGee. Do you really beleve that communists are the only ones that do altruisitic deeds? We can do good deeds on our own without an attempt to force us to do them. That attitude actually belies a lack of faith in the goodness of people that is similar to the rationale of the existence of governments themselves. Anarchism should have the exact opposite attitude towards people. If we people can't be trusted it won't work. I'm an anarchist that says anarchism will work and it's because we can run our own lives without having all these artifial laws imposed on us. ] 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Absolutely false. Anarcho-communists advocate expropriation. Expropriation is not voluntary. Anarcho-communists want to put everyone under their authority.] 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Agreed. Anarchism should be about freedom not another authoritarian takeover. I believe that I, like the average person, can run my own life and act according to my own set of moral values and that should be my law. I don't need it to be imposed on me by ''any authority''. Freedom and collectivism aren't happening together. ] 19:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::What part of ''voluntary association'' do you people not understand? If everyone agrees to collectivise or form a commune and you come in denouncing their voluntary choice as authority and force them to trade (which every bloody capitalist through history has done) - YOU are the one enforcing your view on others and denying them freedom. Anarchist communists such as myself have no illusions that everyone will form communes or join collectives. It's never been said. We simply argue that this is the most free form of social organisation. Disagree if you like. However, without removing the monopolisation of the means of production by capitalists, no-one has a choice. They ''must'' accept the capitalist system of wage slavery. Level the playing field and let everyone choose their own path. Freedom is impossible without equality. ] 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::What part of ] do you people not understand? How do you figure that I, or anyone, will come in and "force people to trade"? I really don't think I would be doing that. And what part of living by my own set of moral values and by my own law do you not understand? I don't feel that I'm morally inferior to communists. Sorry. ] 19:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Welcome back maggie/thewolfstar.lingeron/whiskeyrebellion/etc. apparently not staying off an article from which you are permenantly banned is not part of your moral values. ] 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Wage slavery? 'Capitalists' pay wages to labourers even before the final product is delivered to the customer. They are taking all the risk. They should be commended for that. ] 19:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Do you deny that anarcho-communists would expropriate private property? You think anarcho-communists will sit back and let others become wealthy while they live in mediocrity? And you call yourself an anarcho-communist? Expropriation is part and parcel of "anarcho"-communism. That's why it is authoritarian.] 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:If it's purely voluntary, I've got no problem with it. Let a thousand flowers bloom... let people set up everything from voluntary collectivist communes to anarcho-capitalist Galt's Gulches, where people are free to join or leave any of them and they don't interfere with one another. Still, some sort of market system will inevitably develop whereby the various enclaves exchange whatever goods or services they happen to have surpluses or shortages of, and this will (in my opinion) be more likely to be capitalist than communist in nature. ] 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To this date, there has never been an "anarcho"-capitalist society, and the closest things to "anarcho"-capitalist socities (such as modern Sudan) have very poor peopgle. Anarcho-communist societies on the other hand, have existed and have done very well. Production and wealth increased dramatically in them because were free to produce to their own will and consumer as much as they wanted. Spain and Hunary were good examples of successful anarcho-communism. |
|
|
|
|
|
If anything, I don't see why "anarcho"-capitalists would feel that their system wouldn't force them to attack or try to dominate anarchist communes. As markets expanded, they'd be pressed to beat out competition on the market, and anarchist communist communes would be, from the viewpoint of capitalists, a virtual pool of labor waiting to be utilized. History shows that capitalism has never left anarcho-communism in peace because it posed too much of a threat to the State and to capitalists. It gave complete power to the people and robbed the capitalists of wage laborers to work "his" property. ] 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think they ever heard about capitalism in Sudan, but I could be wrong. ] 11:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems so. Anarcho-capitalism and Doctors Without Suspenders keep claiming that anarcho-communism would be "authoritarian", but have yet to back up such a claim with any kind of reasoning other than mere assertion as fact. As for "laissez-faire" capitalism, as it stands, all it has meant historically is that the State doesn't interfere in the economy and relinquishes all powers to the capitalists. In practice, it's been little more than replacing one tyranny with another. Capitalists would have the same power over property and workers as a State would. How would a capitalist society go about seizing property to make it private without a State? Without a State, what allows a person to take land and make others work it for them? A private defense association could stop that, but it would be just a private form of state. The boss would also assert the same control of a State telling his workers when to show up, how much they will be paid, when they can leave, etc. Laissez-faire would mean complete power for private proprieters. In a laissez-faire society, people would have no choice but to work for capitalists (unless they have enough money to start their own business and employ other people to be their wage laborers), because if they don't they will starve. Hardly voluntary. Once they do work for a capitalist, they have no control over whether or not they want to sell the product of their labor, the capitalist would force them to sell it so the capitalist can profit, on the reasoning that it was produced on their property, so the product of labor is also under their power. People would have little freedom at all over how or whether or not they would trade or how much goods and services they are allowed. ] 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Expropriation of justly earned private property, which anarcho-communists advocate, is authoritarian. And, whether jobs exist or not you would still have to work to survive. The fact that jobs are available just makes it easier for you to survive. You bite the hand that feeds.] 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::What is "justly earned property"? If anything, producers deserve property more than owners because producers: 1) Use it more, 2) Produce all the wealth that comes from it including the owner's profits. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not biting any hand (in fact, I am a stockowner and a manager myself in real life) because owners depend more upon producers than the other way around. The producer only holds the deed to the property, but it is producers that produce all wealth in society and all the products and profits in a company. What does the owner do? Not much, in fact Adam Smith said that one does not have to be skilled to acuquire Capital. I like the saying from the revolutionary in Marlon Brando's 1969 movie Queimada, ''You may be the ones who own the plantations, but we are the ones who cut the cane.'' ] 03:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unsupported Claim == |
|
|
|
|
|
The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article has been changed to say, "However, by using the definition of anarchism, it would seem that true anarchy would be most in line with the anarcho-capitalist line of thinking, in that it allows for a completely free market without any outside regulation." |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an unsupported claim and has been erased until such a claim is supported factually in a scholarly manner by a reputible source. Otherwise it is just a mere ideological assertion by Anarcho-Capitalists. ] 23:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Assertions== |
|
|
Full Shunyata, above you said "Anarcho-capitalism and Doctors Without Suspenders keep claiming that anarcho-communism would be "authoritarian", but have yet to back up such a claim with any kind of reasoning other than mere assertion as fact." But then you went on to make a long claim yourself and didn't back up your claim with any kind of reasoning other than mere assertion as fact. ] 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What specific assertion(s) did I make that were unsupported? If you point them out, I'd gladly try to support those claims. I made my comments because you and Anarcho-capitalism continously repeat that anarcho-communism is "authoritarian" and I wanted to know how you think it's authoritarian. I guess specifically I would want to know how the abolition of private ownership of productive property is authoritarian. ] 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It depends on what you mean by "abolition." If you just mean that you and your anarcho-communist friends will not own productive property privately then that would not be authoritarian. But if you forcefully prevent someone else from owning something that he produced from labor, including means of production like machines and farms, then that is authoritarian.] 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is nearly impossible for a person to create productive property without using things created by other people. The hammer, nails, wood, metals, mortar, bricks, cement, etc. that a person uses to make productive property is almost never all created by the person making the productive property. So if a person made productive property, then decided that he should be able to deny people access to it unless they submit to his terms, then everyone could just demand back what they gave him to make the property. |
|
|
|
|
|
If a person owns productive property, like a factory, farm or workplace, then he can forcefully make others submit to his rules, regulations and wages while on the property. That is authoritarian in and of itself. Thus, it would not be any more authoritarian for anarcho-communists to prevent private property than it would be authoritarian to prevent the State from arising again. If a neighborhood lives near a man who built a bread factory, and the owner wouldn't allow the people any access bread unless they sell part of their time to them in exchange for wages, that is authoritarian. However, if he built the factory and everyone (including himself) was free to produce at the factory to make bread for themselves, but the original builder still called it "Joe's Bakery" but did not assert authority over the producers in it, it would not be authoritarian. Private property, in and of itself, is authoritarian by nature. Look up any definition of private property and you'll see that the property owner retains the same "rights" and power of a state on that property. ] 00:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is ''still'' not the place for theoretical discussion. ]] 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::So what if someone can't build a machine without using things created by other people? He purchases these things from other people and puts them together to make a machine. People produce things in order to sell them. You think these people should be allowed to take these things back onece someone applies his labor to them to create something useful? That's theft. Because someone applies their labor to purchased products and creates a machine therefore everyone else should have a right to it? You deny that people have a right to own product of their labor and that's what makes you an anarcho-communist. And that's what makes anarcho-capitalists think you are an authoritarian.] 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"So what if someone can't build a machine without using things created by other people? He purchases these things from other people and puts them together to make a machine." Why would they sell anything to him in the first place? How is the value of currency determined? This all pre-supposes the existence of a market system in place. Without a state, why would anything sell or buy anything? The only reason people have to engage in wage labor in the first place is that in a capitalstic society they have no independent means of income for themselves because they have no access to independent property. If it would be theft to take back the supplies that he built the shop from, it is just as much a form of theft for him to assert control over the shop and regulate access to it. What right does he have to control who can use what? "Because someone applies their labor to purchased products and creates a machine therefore everyone else should have a right to it?" Because someone applies their labor to making a building and creating machines it gives him the right to tell others they cannot enter? "You deny that people have a right to own product of their labor" No I don't. You denied people the right to have a right to their own product when you said that it would be theft to take back products of labor from someone (taking back the parts that made the shop in this instance). Farms give even less validity to private property, what determines that one person is allowed to own a particular plot of land and deny it from anyone else? Everyone has a right to the product of their labor, which is why I support peer and gift economies in which people exchange goods and services without the vice or property entitlement and currency. Private property is theft since there are almost no properties that are the product of a single person's labor. You seem to not be differentiating between productive and personal property. The problem with exact private ownership of productive property is that one only deserves complete ownership of something if every single aspect of the property was made totally and absolutely by them. No man is an island so that is almost never the case. And even if it was, the concept that they should be able to hoard it to themselves is nothing more than Entitlement ideology that has no scientific basis in reality. ] 00:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I looked up private property. Here's the definition: |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''private property''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:n movable property (as distinguished from real estate) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So what are you saying..that this junk that I own, that probably isn't worth a hill of beans, should be taken away from me..that I have no right to own it? ] 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong. The "property" that you just defined would fall under the Anarchist definition of "possession". A possession is personal property that a person consistently uses but cannot be used to coerce and control others (such as toothbrush, a televiion, a car, a toaster, a house, etc.) "Property", in the anarchist definition, is something that is used to produce for society and can be used as a source of coercion and hierarchy (such as a farm, a mill, a factory, a workplace, etc.) An anarcho-communist would not object to people privately owning their own houses and acres of land. However, an anarcho-communist would object so someone owning a factory or a workplace on the grounds that it is authoritarian, coercive (since it produces vital goods for society that can be used a source of manipulation in the hands of a single individual) and the so-called "right" to own is imaginary. Anarchists of all schools (except for "anarcho"-capitalism) believe that property rights should be based on usage. ] 00:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Of course it presupposes the existnce of a market system. That's who we're talking about - a market system. Saying that someone should be allowed to take back what the sold to someone else, which is what you say, is not saying that people should have a right to the product of their labor. It is saying they should have a right to steal. Once someone makes a trade, he transfers ownership of the product of his labor to someone else. Ownership of a thing does not continue after you give it to someone else in trade! You are advocating lying. You think that if you say you will give me X for Y, and I agree to it that you should be able to take X back afterwards by force. In other words, you are saying it's ok to lie and cheat. You are the one with the "entitlement" ideology.] 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It is only "theft" if you believe that people do not have the right to the product of their labor. If you believe that someone else (in this case, the capitalist) has a right to someone else's labor products, of course you would view it as theft. What you are discussing is not the right to own the product of one's labor, what you are describing is the right to steal land and materials and claim it as one's own. On the grounds of positive and negative liberty, one's ownership cannot extend beyond one's nose, that is one cannot own something to the point where they coerce or exploit another person. Private property extends one's rights over other people and takes negative freedom (the right to not be coerced) away from others who do not own. And the existence of private property can only be kept by force (ie. a State). Without a state, there is nothing to secure a person owning a bakery and preventing it from becoming publically accessible. Which is why capitalism needs force and a State. ] 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You're the anarcho-communist. You think people do not have a right to the product of their labor. That's a well known tenet of anarcho-communism. Your anarcho-communist buddy Joseph Dejacque said straight out "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." I do no advocate "stealing land and materials." I advocate ownership of the product of labor. If a person transformed unowned land into a farm, then that farm is the product his labor. I assert that he owns that farm. You say that he doesn't. And no you do not need a State to protect private property. Private property can be protected privately.] 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:About your Joe the Baker example, If "Joe" from "Joe's Bakery" could not make a profit (sell bread for more than it costs to pay for labor and supplies), then he would not build the bread making machine and running a bakery in the first place. What would be the point in going through all the trouble? He would like to be compensated for his efforts. If he couldn't profit he would not build the bread machine. Then what? You, or you and your communist buddies, would have to build your own bread machine. But, he's not taking anything away from you by building one and offering others the opportunity to make money by selling their labor to him. He's just relieving you of the necessity of building your own. More than that, he's allowing you the opportunity to obtain money so that you can trade that money for whatever you want. If you don't want money and to engage in trade, that's fine. Don't go to work and establish a commune with your friends. But do not tell us that the baker is doing something unethical by offering jobs.] 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your example is highly unlikely because it is unlikely the factory would be built by a single person. Most likely, it would take several people to build it. Now what gives one man (let's call him "Joe") the right over it? You are right that in a capitalist system, Joe would be in trouble if he could not sell it for a profit. However, in an anarcho-communist society, since there is no currency to begin with, bread would be produced and distributed to whatever stores at whatever amount the producers and consumers see fit. |
|
|
:::What are you calling "stores"? They sure wouldn't be stores in any normal sense. They would not be a place of trade. Anarcho-communists are for the abolition of trade, irrationaly.] 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"But, he's not taking anything away from you by building one and offering others the opportunity to make money by selling their labor to him." Why would anyone work for him in the first place? The only reason they would work for him is if they have no independent access to other means of production and they can only get bread if they have money to pay for it because of the monetary system that is set up. Thus, your hypothetical capitalist is a thief in several ways: 1) He has acquired property and restricts people's access to it. 2) When he hires them, he would have control over them, they would have to limit their freedom. Your little capitalist is little more than a private fedual lord without the King. But unless he has hired thugs (ie. a State), there is nothing to protect him from people deciding they don't want to work for him and they want ownership of the property since they are the ones who produce all the products and produce all the owner's wealth with their labor. "But do not tell us that the baker is doing something unethical by offering jobs." He is doing something unethical by hoarding property. What gives him the right to own the workplace in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your posts are highly polemic and unprofesional, they are peppered with a bunch of righteous indignance (such as your rants against "theft") and epithets such as "commie". ] 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The reason that you would go to work for the baker to obtain money is because other people want money in trade for their products. That is not coercion. They just assert they have a right to the product of their labor and the right to decide for themselves what they will accept in trade for it. Most people choose money instead of barter. No one is coercing you to obtain money. You yourself find it useful in order to deal with these people. That's why you go to work. You're free to set up an anarcho-communist commune that does not engage in trade, if you wish. You ask what gives a baker the right to own his ovens in the first place? The fact that he built them or purchased them. But you as an anarcho-communists disagree that people have a right to own the product of their labor and what it received in trade. Anarcho-communism is a philosophy to justify theft.] 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If you want to know the reason that anarcho-communists oppose private ownership, it is because private ownership amounts to the State writ small. Capitalism denies self-management, because it alienates the individual from such basic rights as free speech, independent thought, free association and self-management of one's own activity, which individuals have to give up when they are employed. It also robs property from people by putting property in the hands of a small group of private owners and giving them totalitarian control over property. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Anarcho-communists support common ownership of property on the grounds that ownership should rationally be based on usage and production. Those who create all wealth in society have the right to own since all material things in society are a product of their labor. The private owner, from an anarcho-communist standpoint, is little more than a parasite who produces little or no wealth of his own but contols and owns all the produced wealth on the grounds of "ownership". ] 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In short, anarcho-communists deny the right of individuals to own the product of their labor. The reason they oppose anarcho-capitalism is because people are allowed to own the product of their labor in anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque said, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." A philosophy of theft.] 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::No, we deny the right of individuals to control other people or derive society of property. We deny the right for owners to take ownership of production away from producers and consumers. We believe everyone should have ownership of what they use to produce and should be able to consume to their pre-determined needs and wants on the grounds that all monetary values are artificial, and thus worthless. Mere "spooks" as Max Stirner would put it. The reason we oppose "anarcho"-capitalism is that in such a system owners would own the products of labor rather than producers, Anarcho-communists believee that producers should own the products of their labor and be free to do with them as they please. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::As for your Kropotkin quote, what he meant is that if everyone was only entitled to what they produced (the product of their labor), people would own very little. Even in a capitalist society, people own far more than what they produce (for instance, I'm sure you didn't make your cell phone or your television). Anarcho-communists have the same view of produce that capitalists do, once products are distributed, control of them is relinguished. However, instead of being regulated and allocated by markets (which is a form of regulation by money), we believe that products should be laissez-faire: hands off. No one has the right to own or control somoeone else's labor, and no one has the right to control consumption. We are complete laissez-faireists in the truest sense. A capitalist can only be "laissez-faire" in terms of state regulation protecting Labor, but can never be laissez-faire in the truest sense because they believe in hands-on control of productive property and hands-on control of Labor by Capital. ] 01:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You're using Max Stirner? That's hilarious. There is no bigger opponent of communism than Max Stirner. Anyway, that wasn't a quote from Kropotkin but from Dejacque. And no that's not what he was talking about. He was saying that people should not be paid for working. He was saying it to Proudhon because he supported payment for labor. And, no monetary values are not "artificial" in any sense. Let's say the money we are using are shells, like the ancient Chinese. If I buy a loaf of bread from you for five shells, then the monetary value of the bread, to me, is above 5 shells. You think that if you sell your labor to me and tranform my property, which was the product of my labor, into something new then that means that you own what results. That's theft. Pure and simple. If you make an agreement with me and then go back on it by taking what I hired you to produce, you're a thief. You have broken a contract. You have lied to me.] 02:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You mentioned farms. Are you saying that a family that owns a small farm, that busts it's ass to work that farm, are thieves? It's their farm and they work hard to reap what ever they can from it. It's private property. Would you call them thieves? ] 01:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I bet he'll say if it's a small farm where they grow just enough for themselves it's ok, but not if it's a large one. And, he will oppose the fact that the family will sell their goods in the market instead of giving it away free to the anarcho-communists.] 01:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"Are you saying that a family that owns a small farm, that busts it's ass to work that farm, are thieves?" No. As long as they don't exhibit coercive control over other people, they are not theieves. They are only thieves if there is a limited amount of land and they deny other people the right to acquire farming land of their own. Then they become feudal landlords (ie. a private form of State). As long as they don't interfere with the right of others to acquire land, all is fine. You might be interested in reading Tucker's talks about "land monopolies". ] 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"And, he will oppose the fact that the family will sell their goods in the market instead of giving it away free" Why would they sell it on market when they could trade without the use of currency? Currency limits trade by facilitating an arbitrary value on goods and services and limiting or regulating trade due to market trends. The most successful farms in the world were the anarcho-communist farms of Catalonia in Spain, farms in anarchist Hungary and the anarchist farms of the early Soviet Union before Bolshevik bureaucratization. In an anarcho-communist society, a farming family could put their goods out on the gifting or peer "market" and consume as much as they want in return. There is no need for money in such a society because nothing has a price. Everything is "free" in terms of monetary value, but it is not free in the sense that you cannot consume unless you contribute. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Why would a farmer sell 2 tons of hay for $20,000 when they could trade 2 tons of hay in return for 6 tons of corn without the mediator of currency? ] 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Why would they sell it for currency? So they don't have to barter. The purpose of money is to eliminate the need to barter. Why when you sell your car do you not barter? Because money eliminates the need to barter where you would have to find someone with something that you want. With that money you can go buy what you atually want. That's why people use money. Geeze. And what you are calling an anarcho-communist "market" is not a market at all. A market is trade. Anarcho-communists are against trade. They think people should give away what they have for free. Everyone putting their goods in a "community of goods" for everyone to take as they need is not trade.] 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Yes, I know, but currency is still a form of regulation. Instead of a state regulating how much people can consume or produce, in a capitalist market system money dictates how much a person can buy or what they can produce. I'm not suggesting barter, I'm suggesting a gift economy or P2P economy. And yes, many anarcho-communists are against trade, but not all are. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I think a major hang-up is that you misunderstand what anarcho-communists mean by "free" when it comes to economics. We do no propope that people should give away products for nothing in return. We propse tha people give away their products ONLY in return for something else. That something else is consumption of whatever they want in return. It is called "free" because there is no currency involved, not because there is no reciprocation. On the other hand, capitalists think people should be forced to give away their products on the market or else they don't make any money and thus cannot eat. Anarcho-communists believe that people have the right to not give away their labor products at all if they desire not to. ] 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No anarcho-communists do not propose that "people give away their products ONLY in return for something else." You're confusing anarcho-communists with anarcho-capitalists. That's the anarcho-capitalist position. The ancap position is that people should be be allowed to give away their products in return for anything else that others are willing to give back, whether it is other goods or money. It just so happens that people choose money because barter is difficult. Someone offering you a job is not forcing you to work for them. You would still have to work if there were no one offering jobs. Getting a job makes living easier. You sell your labor to someone in order to get money in order to purchase things. Otherwise you would have to take part in an anarcho-communist "gift economy" and that wouldn't be very fruitful. No one forces you to take a job. You take a job because you need to eat to live, you want a car, you want a television, etc etc.] 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::"You're confusing anarcho-communists with anarcho-capitalists" That's absolute BULL. The gift economy is based on ''quid pro quo'' (a favor for a favor). The P2P economy is based on the same spirit except allows for trade more. Read the articles on both. The An-Com position is that people should be self-employed and able to consume however much they want as long as they contribute goods and services in return. People should not have to just "get a job", work should be a joy and a reward in and of itself, not a chore or obligation that one undertakes in order to receive currency to keep from starving. An-Coms would produce goods and services that they want and enjoy making, in return being able to consume to their heart's desire. An-Cap citizens would be stuck in dead-end jobs lest they starve. ] 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Nonsense. Who would flip burgers in an anarcho-communist society? Somebody has to. I know anarcho-commmunists love hamburgers.] 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Burger-flipping could be taken care of by task shifting. For instance, people who would be in the food industry could arrange a pattern of shifting tasks for the day. For instance, if you're in the food industry you could stock shelves one day and flip burgers once a month and work at an IT producer's council the rest of the month. Or, this could be taken care of by labor-saving devices or technology which would eliminate the need of people to engage in menial labor. In a society where education is free and everyone is self-employed, I suspect people would be more multi-talented than in a society where they can only learn what they can afford. ] 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Don't you realize that it is the profit motive that is behind the invention of labor saving devices? The less labor you exert the more income you can make. That's why people invent machines. In a society that does not sell the product of their labor incentive to invent labor-saving devices is severely stunted.] 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::"Don't you realize that it is the profit motive that is behind the invention of labor saving devices?" In a capitalist society, yes. In an anarcho-communist society it would be to maximize production and minimize labor exertion. Basically a way of making work more enjoyable and more productive and efficient. "In a society that does not sell the product of their labor incentive to invent labor-saving devices is severely stunted." In an anarcho-communist society, labor saving technology would be freely passed along between producers and consumers' councils. Instead of trying to expand profit, they would do it maximize production. In a capitalist society, technology is hoarded with intellectual property rights to make more profit. When labor saving technology is invented, it is passed along so that owners can squeeze more labor out of workers and have to higher less people (leading to unemployment). The costs of the new technology are taken out of the salaries of workers, making new products more expensive for consumers. ] 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::False. Inventions that increase productivity are not taken out of the salaries of workers. Workers hours are reduced or they are fired. Then they go to work at someplace where they are more needed, being attracted by the higher wages. Increases in productivity raises the standard of living for everyone, by making products cheaper for everyone; which, by the way, is the same as a general increase in income.] 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::"Inventions that increase productivity are not taken out of the salaries of workers." The price of new technology is either subtracted from the wages of Laobr, or is subsidized by the government. So it is not false: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0903/is_n11_v9/ai_11463297 |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::The IT industry was originally developed by the State (mostly for Pentagon technology) and leased to private companies in the 80's. "Then they go to work at someplace where they are more needed, being attracted by the higher wages." You are very naive if you believe that. Structural unemployment, caused when there is a mismatch between laobr and the skill a job requires, causes most people to have to find jobs with lower wages. Because of the new technology, people cannot get another job unless they have technological skills to keep up with the new technology. Either they get training, go back to school for new training, or just get a lower-skilled job. This is common knowledge to people who were laid off during the Reagan years when new computer technology was leased to private companies. That was part of what caused the heightened unemployment under Reagan. "by making products cheaper for everyone; which, by the way, is the same as a general increase in income" In Real GDP terms adjusted for inflation, wages have been falling for the past 30 years. Inflation has not decreased since the 70's and productivity has actually DECREASED in the US to nearly 1.8% New technology is generally more expensive (why do you think iPODs cost so much?) and does not become cheaper for a while. Consumer goods which have become cheaper in the US, such as junk food and certain clothing, become cheaper due to outsourcing labor. It seems you don't understand Capitalism outside of Cato Institute "information".] 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I suspect that if an "anarcho"-capitalist society was right next to an anarcho-communist society, people would probably migrate to the anarcho-communist society because they would not have to work for anyone except themselves and they would not be limited in how much they can consume by wages. Who would want to live in a society where you have to buy movies when you go live 20 miles away where you could BitTorrent as many movies as you want? ] 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Impossible. An anarcho-capitalist society could not exist right next to an anarcho-communist one. The anarcho-communists would become envious of the all the wealthy people in that anarcho-capitalists society, raid the community, and expropriate (steal) what they "need." Some of them may even migrate to the anarcho-capitalist society in order to seek employment, because they were tired of being so desititute due to living in a society without private property and trade. Then, they would claim they were being "exploited." Then, they would set up a state to create a welfare system for them to live parastically off of the workers. In the meantime, they would justify the welfare state by saying it's necessary until human nature changes where everyone will be willing to work for free.] 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::"The anarcho-communists would become envious of the all the wealthy people in that anarcho-capitalists society" Ridiculous. The only wealth in an anarcho-capitalist society would be in the hands of private owners. Everyone else in the capitalist society would be living off of $6.00-$20.00/hour wages while the communist one would have people who can consume the equivalent to people who make $600,000 a year if they wish. The communist society would be full of people who either live on large technologized farms, or live in large post-modern houses in residential districts of the city. In an anarcho-communist society, since there is no currency to limit production or consumption, people would be able to build their houses to any size that they want, which means that everyone could build 100-room houses if they so wished. People would only hold jobs that they enjoy, and would be self-managed and self-employed with no bosses. Work would be multi-skilled and flexible allowing people to hold any job and any amount of jobs they want to produce and consume. Technology would probably be very advanced and evenly spread due to no private hoarding or proprietization of technology. People in the capitalist society, on the other hand, would only be able to live where their income permits, consume only what they can afford, and be at the complete mercy of their bosses during the working hours having to pay rent and sky-high interest rates to landloards (since they can charge whatever they want with no state to regulate capitalist commerce). Most people would probably live in either lower-middle-income suburban houses or urban row housing. People would drive cars from the 90's and early 2000's while capitalists would have access to state-of-the-art technology. Business owners would probably see all the resources and potential cheap labor in the communist community and plan ways to invade it to expand their markets and beat out incoming competing firms. The history of the Spanish Civil War should be a lesson. Spanish citizens under capitalist and fascist-controlled areas spread to communist and sydnicalist areas in the droves where workers chased capitalists out of mansions and turned them into fancy hotels and condominiums. The capitalists couldn't stand this and sided with the Fascists to attack Catalonia. ] 06:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You're acting immature by resorting to name-calling and hyperbole when you can't win an argument. ] 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Don't make personal attacks.] 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think he lost the argument. And you can't be serious about people living on a level of someone who earns $600,000 a year. What fairy tale are you living in? ] 02:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Why wouldn't they? In a society where production and consumption is free, the only limits to consumption would be production. This problem would disappear in a post-scarcity system. I can direct you to sources with eyewitness accounts of the Spanish Revolution. People chased capitalists out of town in Catalonia and workers and consumers turned mansions of business owners into condos, resorts and restaurants. People walked out of community stores with cartfulls of food whereas before the Revolution they could barely afford bread and milk. ] 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Food for thought on anarcho-capitalism == |
|
|
I'd recommend that those on both sides of the ancap/anticap divide read this article: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473 |
|
|
:''After thinking about this a great deal, I’ve come to the conclusion that the above exaggerates the differences between anarcho-capitalism and mutualism as ideologies, but not necessarily as movements — an important distinction to make. As a result, I’d like to review why I believe anarcho-capitalism is, in some ways, incorrectly named and why this, in turn, has resulted in an anarcho-capitalist movement consisting of a large number of deviationists insufficient in their adherence to their own stated principles.'' |
|
|
--] 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This link is broken --] 15:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It works for me. Try again? --] 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's kind of a silly article, to argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of socialism. Anarcho-capitalism is not socialism, because socialism today is defined by collective ownership of the means of production. Mutualism isn't socialism either, according to modern definition. However, I might agree that anarcho-capitalists in the 19th century might have called themselves socialists because it didn't mean what it does today.] 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I read most of that article and have to agree that it didn't make much sense. Rothbard was not a socialist but rather a libertarian who wanted to get rid of the state altogether. ] 20:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's an argument about the appropriateness of labels. We're ''all'' libertarians here, and presumably we all want to get rid of the state. If you think the definition in a college dictionary is the limits of what a word means, or can mean, in the active world of political discourse then don't finish the article, but if you're a little more flexible than that, it's at least an interesting argument. ] 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Mutualist and Individualist Anarchism are not capitalistic. They are forms of socialism but are not forms of communism. Socialism is defined as ''a system in which producers control and own both the means of production and possess political power''. Both of them fit this definition because even though they believed in "private" ownership, it was not in the same sense as capitalist private ownership. In fact, it would be better to just call it "individual" ownership rather than "private" to avoid confusion. Individualists and Mutualists believed that production should be owned by independent producers (not capitalists) and independent producers could come together and pool their production together to form firms and compete on a competitive, stateless, non-capitalistic market. They believed in employers but believed that employers should be producers and that employees should have equal rights with the employer in economic decisions. Basically it makes capitalism redundant because in such a system, all owners are also producers and all producers are also owners. Employers and employees are co-equal producers and buusiness partners working for mutual gain. Individualism believed banks hindered accumulation but Mutualists believed in cooperatively/communally-owned banks. They were against profit, against interest, against loaning, against rent and other kinds of 'usury'. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that they were capitalistic or related to capitalism. They were basically socialist forms of pre-industrial commerce capitalism. Both Tucker and Proudhon called themselves socialits and had no love for capitalism. Anyone who claims that their system is "capitalism" just because it has a market and has private ownership is being unfactual and anyone who claims that socialism automatically = state ownership is being ahistorical or blind on purpose. ] 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You sure do paint individualists with broad strokes. First of all, anarcho-capitalists are individualists. Lysander Spooner supported the right to charge interest for loans, and thought that the state imposing limits on rate of interest hurts poor people. Benjamin Tucker did not believe in "communally-owned" banks, but rather that anyone should be allowed to loan money that wanted to. You say that "Individualists and Mutualists believed that production should be owned by independent producers (not capitalists) and independent producers could come together and pool their production together to form firms and compete on a competitive, stateless, non-capitalistic market." The nineteenth century individuals support a market just as anarcho-capitalists support. I don't know what you're calling a "non-capitalistic market." Anarcho-capitalists also support individual (private) ownership. What are you calling "capitalist" ownership? If is factual that capitalism is a system with private property and markets. What Benjamin Tucker thought is that prices with be proportional to labor in a free market. And he thought there would be no interest because banking was unregulated, which defies everything we know about money and banking. The nineteenth century individualists were really bad economists. Economics has advanced an no one takes their ideas on economics seriously, but a few kooks like Kevin Carson.] 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm not painting with a broad anything, I'm defining Anarcho-Individualists the way they describe themselves. "First of all, anarcho-capitalists are individualists." So they claim but Anarcho-Individualists (at least the majority of them) would sorely disagree. Individualists support individual producer ownership, are against rent, profit, interest and loaning. They are also against banking (the Tuckerists are), against hierarchy in the workplace and against private defense associations that "An"-caps support (which is virtually indistinguishable from a State). Individualists support EVERYONE (not just a few like in capitalism) owning private or individual means of production. When producers come together for mutual benefit and employ other producers, the employer does not rule over the employee and everyone recieves equal wages. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"The nineteenth century individuals support a market just as anarcho-capitalists support." They support markets, yes, but it is anything but a capitalistic market. Markets != Capitalism. There were market systems before capitalism was ever invented. They are against interest, against profit, against wage labor, against loans and against usury. They also believe in Mutual Aid, a concept that so-called "An"-caps do not support. Tucker and Proudhon called themselves "socialists" and argued that capitalism is NOT a free market. I would quote the Anarchist FAQ at this point, but it is not a valid source yet because it's not published (although it will be soon). Tshe Anarcho-Mutualist blog and forum evem calls itself "Free Market Anti-Capitalism". |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"I don't know what you're calling a "non-capitalistic market."" Individualists and Mutualists defined their market as "free-market socialism", that is a market owned by producers and consumers rather than private capitalists. Markets have existed for thousands of years prior to capitalism. If you're suggesting that a Market = Capitalism you're being completely ahistorical and you're showing that you truly don't understand Capitalism. "Economics has advanced an no one takes their ideas on economics seriously" If you're referring to mainstream Neoliberal economists (which I'm sure you are), I wouldn't trust them as an unbiased source. Many economists outside of the mainstream don't take Neo-classical Marginalists and STV economics seriously. It has been shown to be self-defeating and circular in logic as far back as the times of Mises. ] 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The majority of anarcho-individualists would agree that anarcho-capitalists are not individualists? Name one.] 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Benjamin Tucker was against banking? Totally false. His whole argument was that banking should be unregulated, because he believed competition in banking would bring interest rates to zero (which is nonsense).] 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The "free banking" argument was more complicated than that, because "banking" in this case meant a wide variety of things, including complementary currencies based on monetizing secured credit, organized in a mutual way which would require no interest. ] 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::In other words, complete nonsense.] 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::In other words, if there is no loan, there is no interest. And there is no loan in the mutual "banking" system. There is only secured, monetized credit. ] 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Anarcho-capitalists, like all individualists, support individuals owning means of production.] 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You're wrong that individualists anarchists support "mutual aid." They support trade.] 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Many of them supported ''both'', as they are certainly not mutually exclusive. Even Tucker was known to invoke the Golden Rule once in a while. ] 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::How are you defining "mutual aid"?] 03:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Maybe you could tell me what you think is ''unindividualistic'' about the notion. Proudhon and Greene believed essentially that individual interests only get satisfied in society. Warren was in favor of cooperation, but without "combination" of interests. Tucker was among the most egoistic of the 19th century individualists, but it didn't (usually) drive him in the direction of social atomism. Even Stirner can produce a sort of mutualism, if you avoid that atomism. You won't agree with it, but you might get a kick out of ''The Right to Be Greedy,'' by the pro-situ group "For Ourselves." It's a "Stirner-Marx synthesis," and very entertaining. ] 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Benjamin Tucker defined capitalism as the state protecting capital from competition. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalim as Tucker defined it. That is not to say that Tucker does not oppose capitalism, because he does, but only in the sense of prices not bring proportional to labor, as in the labor theory of value (which is nonsense). Tucker supported free markets. Anarcho-capitalists support free markets. The difference is what Tucker thought the consequences of free markets is. And he was wrong.] 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Actually, I think the disagreement is over what counts as ''market freedom''. But hold that thought, I ''have'' to escape from my office for the night. ] 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Who are these "many economists" that you claim agree with the utterly ridiculous labor theory of value, in the sense, that they think in a free market that prices are proportional to labor amounts? Good luck.] 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::B. K. Marcus seems to agree with him: http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/socialism/ |
|
|
:::''Is Socialism state-centralization of the economy, or is it any system that levels out the society? From what I've been reading, it seems that for the early 19th-century intellectual, Sociology was any description of how the society did work, and Socialism was any PREscription about how the society SHOULD work.'' |
|
|
:::''By that definition, all anarchists were (and still are) socialists -- even the so-called Anarcho-Capitalists.'' |
|
|
:::''But obviously, if by Socialism you mean any sort of State-centralization of authority, then anarchists never were and still aren't Socialists -- not even, theoretically, the Anarcho-Communists.'' |
|
|
::Mutualism is still frequently referred to as being part of the "libertarian socialist" milieu. Since mutualism is not collectivist, this would indicate that the archaic definition of socialism hasn't entirely gone away. --] 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this would be good too: http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/05/14/long-on-zaxlebax/ |
|
|
:''And similar considerations apply to the term “socialism.” Most people don’t mean by “socialism” anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like “the opposite of capitalism.” Then if “capitalism” is a package-deal term, so is “socialism” — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.'' |
|
|
--] 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Chris, most people define "capitalism" as loosely as they define "socialism". The term "capitalism" has been applied to Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism to Keynesianism and the Social Democracies of Europe; and the term "socialism" has been applied to Marxist Social Democracy and Marxist-Leninism to Democratic Socialism and Libertarian Socialism (ie. Anarchism). Perhaps the best definition of Capitalism is ''A system of private ownership of the means of production in which private owners employ labor to acquire profit and use profit to compete on the market system.'' and Socialism is ''A system in which producers and consumers both own the means of production and possess political power.'' Using these sensible definitions, Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism still do not qualify as capitalism. They are forms of market socialism. ] 00:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Wrong. Market socialism is defined as having collective ownership of the means of production.] 02:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's really a shame to have the same old debates attached to a "discussion" of work as good as Spangler's essay, or Roderick Long's ''zaxlebax'' example. You've got two individualists with good credentials in both anarcho-capitalist and contemporary mutualist circles (one attached to the Mises Institute, for crying out loud), and still they're dismissed out of hand. Just a little bit of research (say in the "Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left" webring) would, of course, show that there are is a healthy variety of market anarchist "kooks" who haven't ceded socialism to the state. ] 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I use mainstream modern definitions. Market socialism today is defined as having collective ownership of the means of production. By modern definition, no individualist anarchists are socialists, especially not anarcho-capitalists. Spanger's essay is silly.] 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's your choice. But ''mainstream'' is certainly no guarantee of the quality of thought. Spangler and Long are ''quality'' thinkers, with whom you have considerable common ground, I would think. They might be worth reading past your lexicographical prejudices for. ] 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Full Shunyata, your terminology in this thread is imprecise. What do you mean when you say someone "opposes wage labor, employing others, rent, interest, etc."? Does that mean they would prevent others from doing those things? That they believe involving themselves in such things is stupid? That they believe it would not emerge in a free society? And under which meaning, ''relevant to '''political''' philosophy'', would the individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists diverge? Remember, if the two camps believe the same system produces different ''results'', that's not a political difference, but an economic one. ] 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Does that mean they would prevent others from doing those things?" You would have to ask Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists that question. There are some here and they can answer that better than I. I suspect that the answer is "Yes". Or at the very least, they would support revolutionary action against such arrangements. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"if the two camps believe the same system produces different ''results'', that's not a political difference, but an economic one" The two camps (Individualism and Capitalism) do not believe in the same political system. "An"-caps believe in private defense associations and sometimes believe in a national military, whereas Individualists don't. They are not the same political or economic system. ] 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Wow. You really don't know much about individualist anarchism if you think they would forcefully prevent people from making a profit. The nineteenth century individualist Tucker thought that if the state stopped preventing competition in banking that all profit would disappear (which is ludicrous). He did not think that people who made a profit were at fault for making a profit, but that the state was responsible for causing it. Tucker believed people should have a legal right to profit, even though he thought it exploited people. I quote him: "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury," meaning he defends the legal right even though he thought it not morally right. And, you're wrong about the nineteenth century individualists not supporting private defense. Do you think they're stupid? Why would they say they supported private property but neglect to advocate protection? I quote Benjamin Tucker: "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." Another quote from Tucker: " does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." And, you say that the 19th century individualist anarchists "would support revolutionary action"? You're wrong. They are philosophical anarchists. I quote the 19th century individualists Victor Yarros: "The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the notions which breathe life and vigour into that clumsy monster: in other words, it is only when the people learn to value liberty, and to understand the truths of the anarchistic philosophy, that the question of practically abolishing the State looms up and acquires significance." Clearly, you know hardly anything about individualist anarchism. No wonder you fail to see that anarcho-capitalists are individualists.] 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Wow. You really don't know much about individualist anarchism if you think they would forcefully prevent people from making a profit." I was going to edit my earlier post to say that they would support workers' self-defense against capitalists. Most anarchists (including anarcho-communists) do not believe in violent aggression, most believe in self-defense. Since capitalism cannot be created without the use of force, it needs force to secure private property to ensure wage labor and profits, many would support self-defense against capitalist force. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Anyway, you are quoting Tucker very selectively (which is not suprising given that you are trying to justify "Anarcho"-capitalism by linking it to Individualist theory). Tucker believed in competition, but also believed in mutual aid, he agreed with many parts of Proudhon's mutualist theory. Believing in market competition does not make one a capitalist anyway. Here are the rest of Tucker's words on profit: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Tucker also said: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''" would ake capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan, and then these vacant lands will come into use . . . operatives will be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and then they will be independent of their employers, and then the labour problem will be solved." '' |
|
|
|
|
|
::The man clearly sees private profit as exploitation. He believed that profits should be split equally amongst the employees and employers, thus eliminating the suprlus capital that would go to a capitalist. The term "usury" was his synonym for "exploitation of labor". He did not support wage hierarchy or profit off of labor going to an owner. But you are right about one thing, he did not propose forceful revolution, he propose reformism by replacing capitalist businesses with cooperatives and mutual banking. Individualist Anarchist William Ballie goes on to say: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''"n one side a dependent class of wage-workers and on the other a privileged class of wealth-monopolisers, each become more and more distinct from the other as capitalism advances." '''This has'''"resulted in a grouping and consolidation of wealth which grows apace by attracting all property, no matter by whom produced, into the hands of the privileged, and hence property becomes a social power, an economic force destructive of rights, a fertile source of injustice, a means of enslaving the dispossessed."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::"No wonder you fail to see that anarcho-capitalists are individualists." Capitalists of any sort are not individualists in the words of Tucker and Spooner themselves. According to them, capitalism takes liberty away from many individuals and hands it over to the owners. Tucker says: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''"property, in the sense of individual possession, is liberty"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Furthermore he said: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''" due to that denial of liberty which takes the shape of land monopoly, vesting titles to land in individuals and associations which do not use it, and thereby compelling the non-owning users to pay tribute to the non-using owners as a condition of admission to the competitive market."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Lysander Spooner went on to say: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''"a monopoly of money . . . .put it wholly out of the power of the great body of wealth-producers to hire the capital needed for their industries; and thus compel them . . . -- by the alternative of starvation -- to sell their labour to the monopolists of money . . . plunder all the producing classes in the prices of their labour."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''"holders of this monopoly now rule and rob this nation; and the government, in all its branches, is simply their tool"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::In other words, Spooner is arguing that the State is a tool of capitalism and Capitalism uses the State to support itself and exploit people. The State is not an enemy of capitalism, it is the tool of capitalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do you have any more wild claims trying to associate capitalism with this libetarian socialist tradition? ] 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You just proved my point that they thought that if prices were not proportional to labor amounts that there was exploitation taking place. And, that it is the state's fault for making this possible by restricting competition. They did not support attacking people making a profit or confiscating their profits, but believed people should have a right to make a profit, because they state was causing it. I have not said that they were capitalists. I explicitly said above: "Benjamin Tucker defined capitalism as the state protecting capital from competition. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism as Tucker defined it. That is not to say that Tucker does not oppose capitalism, because he does, but only in the sense of prices not bring proportional to labor, as in the labor theory of value (which is nonsense). Tucker supported free markets. Anarcho-capitalists support free markets. The difference is what Tucker thought the consequences of free markets is. And he was wrong." By the way, do you still want to claim that Tucker didn't support private defense and military? I think you should probably stop this discussion because you don't know anything about individualist anarchism.] 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"And, that it is the state's fault for making this possible by restricting competition." How is the State restricting competition at fault for profit exploitation? Back this up with some sort of facts or reasoning, or else drop this line of argument. "That is not to say that Tucker does not oppose capitalism, because he does, but only in the sense of prices not bring proportional to labor, as in the labor theory of value (which is nonsense)." Tucker opposed the kinds of things that "An"-caps support. He opposed profit, leasing, rent and interest and supported equal wages and equal control of production for employers and employees. He believed that if everyone was an individual producer, it would make private capitalists redundant. "supported free markets. Anarcho-capitalists support free markets." Tucker was against the kind of markets that capitalists support. In fact, he argued that capitalist markets are not free at all and lead to land monopolies as well as profit monopolies. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"That is not to say that Tucker does not oppose capitalism" so when Tucker says he opposes capitalism, you conveniently redefine capitalism to make it compatible (or at least appear compatible) with his market theory, but when he says he opposes socialism, you say that he really means ALL forms of socialism. Not just socialism as he defines it. Why the double standards? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Ref: http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secG5.html |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Yes, Tucker did make that quote, but the type of socialism he spoke of was "state socialism" (ie. Marxism and Social Democracy) and it clear that he did not understand communism at all due to several comments he made on it. As Errico Malatesta argued: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''"as such monopolies cannot be maintained otherwise than under the protection of a monopolist legislation and an organised coercion by the State, the claims of these individualists necessarily end up in a return to the State idea and to that same coercion which they so fiercely attack themselves. Their position is thus the same as that of Spencer and of the so-called 'Manchester school' of economists, who also begin by a severe criticism of the State and end up in its full recognition in order to maintain the property monopolies, of which the State is the necessary stronghold."''] 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::If you don't know that Tucker thought that the State caused the possibility to profit by restricting competition in money and banking, then it is confirmed that you know next to nothing about individualist anarchism. Read "State Socialism and Anarchism" by Tucker.] 04:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Here is a quote from Benjamin Tucker just to confuse you: "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism."] 03:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Do you have a citation for this? It's not showing up in ''Liberty''. ] 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's from one of his letters to Ewing C. Baskette in 1934 or 35. It's one of several qoutes in the Martin's Men Against the State from his letters to Baskette.] 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks. I'll find it in Martin. ] 03:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Page 275 in the 1972 version.] 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Libertaria, yes Tucker says that, but it is important to remember that he was comparing Commerce Capitalism (ie. pre-industrial capitalism) of the 17th and 18th century to "State Socialist" theories of the 19th century. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::''"The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names of the two schools of '''Socialistic''' thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism."'' '''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::He clearly states the Anarchism = Socialism and argues that State Socialism and Anarchism are two forms of socialism; the Authority kind and the Liberty kind. He simply argues that he found pre-Industrial Capitalism to be more tolerable than State Socalism. Anarcho-capitalism is quoting Tucker out of context on purpose to bolster his argument that Capitalism is somehow tied in with Individualism. Individualist Anarchism is a socialism form of Commerce Capitalism or Classical Liberalism. ] 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::He is saying that capitalism under a state is better than socialism under a state. It allows more freedom and is thus more compatible with individualist anarchism.] 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Yes, that seems like a better way to explain what he's saying. However, he says this because his philosophy is a socialism form or pre-Industrial Capitalism, which then makes his comment unsurprising. On a personal note, I find Capitalism under a State and Socialism under a State equally bad. ] 04:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No. Obviously, individulist anarchism is not socialism. I use modern definitions, not archaic ones. Today, socialism is defined as including collective ownership of the means of production. Tucker definitely would not oppose anarcho-capitalism (except on the land issue), because he advocated free markets just like modern individualist anarchists - the anarcho-capitalists. He just differed on what he thought the results would be. He thought that in a free market that everything would be furnished at the cost of production, because economics had not progressed yet.] 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::"I use modern definitions, not archaic ones. Today, socialism is defined as including collective ownership of the means of production." No, I am not using archaic definitions of socialism or capitalism, I am using modern ones. Socialism, even today, is objectively defined as: ''"a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."'' '''''' With this definition, Individualists are indeed socialists because they believe(d) in, as I've shown several times, private producer ownership. Producer ownership can be either collectivistic or individualistic. "Because he advocated free markets just like modern individualist anarchists" His markets were completely unlike the Capitalist markets of today, or any capitalist era. As I've said, time and time again, he was against profit accumulation, against interest, against loans and against leasing. He believed in equal wages for employers and employees and believed firms should be non-hierarchical. Employees in an Individualist society would simply be independent producers with a smaller amount of property than employers who merge with them for mutual benefit, not landless laborers. Do I need to quote Tucker yet again? You are being selective and you know it, the "free market" of Individualism is DRASTICALLY different that the "free market" of ANY form of Capitalism. The only real difference between Anarcho-Individualism and Anarcho-Collectivism is that Individualism believes in individual producer ownership while Collectivism believes in social producer ownership. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::"He thought that in a free market that everything would be furnished at the cost of production" He believed that everything in a genuinely free market would be furnished at cost of production because there would be no central owner who pockets the profits. Profits would be divided up equally amongst all producers. Please, stop cherry-picking from Individualism to bolster your argument and try to link Capitalism to it. This is a waste of space on the page and it looks very pathetic. ] 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::No, you have no read State Socialism and Anarchism. He thought profit was the result of the state protecting capital from competition - namely, protecting money and banking from competition. He thought that if banking were unregulated that that would cause interest rates to drop to zero due to competition in lending. In turn, this would free up capital for lending to people wanting to start business. As a result, the number of businesses would increase at faster rate than the number of people seeking employment. This would result in wages in increasing due to increased demand for workers. This would result in the worker receiving his "full product" which would be the price that would correspond with the labor theory of value. He advocates the same free market as anarcho-capitalists, he just thinks there would be much different results (beceause he was a bad economist).] 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::If youre defining socialism as "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods" then capitalists would be socialists too, since in capitalism the producers own the means of production. The more authoritative Merriam Webster dictionary defines it as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." By that commonly accepted definition, individualists anarchist are not socialists because they do not believe in collective ownership of the means of production.] 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::"If youre defining socialism" I didn't define anything, the American Heritage Dictionary did. "capitalists would be socialists too, since in capitalism the producers own the means of production" No, the owners own the means of production. The owners do not produce the goods and services, the employees do. The people who own productive property are not the same people who use it to produce. Donald Trump is not a producer, the people who work under him are. The only exception in capitalism would be a small business owner who owns a small store or business. They are an owner but most likely also produce (ie. do some sort of labor) as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::"He thought profit was the result of the state protecting capital from competition" No, he assigned the fault to money monopolies of private owners: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::''"a monopoly of money . . . .put it wholly out of the power of the great body of wealth-producers to hire the capital needed for their industries; and thus compel them . . . -- by the alternative of starvation -- to sell their labour to the monopolists of money . . . plunder all the producing classes in the prices of their labour."'' '''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Please, stop trying to make him out to be something that he was not. He was not an "An"-cap who faulted the State for everything and exonerated capitalism. ] 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::"The more authoritative Merriam Webster dictionary" Such an egregious claim needs verification. Yes, different dictionaries define it as different things, but the the first one (the American Heritage one) is more consistent. Thus, I would trust it more since the concept of "state socialism" is non-sensical in the first place. If the state amasses the means of production, that means a non-worker class of bureaucrats controls production, not producers and consumers (ie. society as the term SOCIALism means). |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Socialism |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::Do I need to give you a crash course in Capitalism? You seem to have a very radical (and factually incorrect) revised definition of Capitalism. ] 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::The Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines capitalism as "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." You don't agree with that definition? That's how capitalism is defined today.] 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Need a source for individualist anarchism not being socialism? "The same may be said of anarchism: social anarchism - a nonstate form of socialism - may be distinguished from the nonsocialist and, in some cases, procapitalist school of individualist anarchism." (Busky, Donald F. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, page 2)] 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::Your quote is from a state socialist who likely has a poor knowledge of anarchism. Thus, the scholarship of this quote is questionable. ] 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::The guy is a well respected scholar. He knows what he's talking about. People today define socialism as including collective ownership of the means of production. If you dont support that, then you're not a socialist.] 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::"Whereas collectivist anarchists derive their ideas from socialism, individualist anarchists derive their ideas largely from classical liberal thinking." (Grant, Moyra. ''Key Ideas in Politics'', Nelson Thornes (2003), p. 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::Here is a quote from the "anarcho-capitalist" Murray Rothbard on Individualism, straight from the horse's mouth: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::''"I am...strongly tempted to call myself an 'individualist anarchist', except for the fact that Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." '''--Murray Rothbard''' ] 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Right. He did say that, but he was still an individualist anarchist. There is no trace of collectivism in anarcho-capitalist. Scholars today consider ancap to be an individualist anarchism. ANd yes he does have certain differences, as I've been trying to explain to you. Anarcho-capitalist dont think prices in a free market would be proportional to labor amounts.] 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Need sources?: |
|
|
|
|
|
*"In contrast, there is individualist or atomistic anarchism. Its adherents like to confuse people by also calling it anarcho-capitalism." Foldvary, Fred E. Why Aren't You an Anarchist?, Progress Report, reprinted in The Free Liberal, Feb. 14, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Individualist, as distinct from socialist, anarchism has been particularly strong in the USA from the time of Josiah Warren (1798-1874) onwards and is expressed today by Murray Rothbard and the school of 'anarcho-capitalists'." Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Of much greater intellectual interest has been the continuing revival of individualist American anarchism associated with writers such as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick." Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right." Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21 & pp. 13-14, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and socialist anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a contemporary variant of this school. " Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, p.21 1991 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Modern individualist anarchism, now most forcefully represented by anarcho-capitalism, has its own problems." Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"They also generated individualist varieties of anarchism most notable for strong hostility to the state, such as anarcho-capitalism and egoism." Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Today individualist anarchists in the US call themselves anarcho-capitalists or libertarians." Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Followers of Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency ( the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services effectively according to price) and morality (the state claims by its authority to do things that are not permitted to ordinary individuals)." Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"The principle division in anarchism, also known as libertarianism or antiauthoritarianism, is between social anarchists, who believe in a nonstate form of socialism, and the individualist anarchists, who oppose socialism and favor capitalism or are opposed to any form of social organization whatsoever." Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"However, for anarcho-individualists the needs of the individual superseded the commune. This school of though is associated with the German, Max Stirner...Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, "un-terrified" Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." Levy, Carl. Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 MS Encarta (UK). |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Individualist anarchism is based upon the idea of the sovereign individual, the belief that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or authority. Individualist anarchism overlaps with libertarianism and is usually linked to a strong belief in the market as a self-regulating mechanism, most obviously manifest in the form of anarcho-capitalism." Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"One view, which ought to be taken more seriously than it usually is and which is most ably defended by Murray Rothbard's writings, is that recognition that each and every man possesses the same right to maximum freedom at once disqualifies any institution resembling the state from moral legitimacy and entails individualist anarchism." Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"In fact, what Faucher and the others had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism. This was in the 1840s." Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"the 'libertarian anarchist' could on the face of it either be in favour of capitalism or against it...Pro-capitalist anarchism, is as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the U.S. where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." Tormey, Simon, Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 |
|
|
|
|
|
*"l'anarchismo individualista, che si affida, in un quadro di libera associazione tra le comunità, al principio del libero mercato, depurato dall'appoggio statale, dal monopolio e dalla coercizione (vedi Anarco-capitalismo)." "Anarchismo" Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia Online 2006 (Italian), http://it.encarta.msn.com "Anarco-capitalismo: Nota soprattutto negli Stati Uniti come libertarianism, la dottrina anarco-capitalista affonda le sue matrici nell'anarchismo individualista americano, negli avversari del dirigismo statalistico dell'epoca rooseveltiana e nell'esperienza della controcultura degli anni Sessanta." "Anarco-capitalismo," Microsoft® Encarta® Enciclopedia Online 2006 (Italian), http://it.encarta.msn.com |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::"There is no trace of collectivism in anarcho-capitalist." Yes there is, they subver the collective society to the will of powerful individuals. Rothbard rejected Individualism, regardless of your claims. ] 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You think anarcho-capitalism is a collectivist form of anarchism? Man, you are really out of touch on this stuff. Everyone knows that anarcho-capitalism is individualist.] 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::''"few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp... Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."'' '''--Peter Marshall Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30'''] |
|
|
::::::::::::::That's true. Most anarchists are anarcho-communists, so naturally they are not going to accept them as anarchists even though they are. Marshall is one of those communists.] 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::If you don't believe me, here is the input of a modern-day Individualist Anarchist Laurance Labadie: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''"Mere common sense would suggest that any court would be influenced by experience; and any free-market court or judge would in the very nature of things have some precedents guiding them in their instructions to a jury. But since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have considerable say about the heinousness of the offence in each case, realising that circumstances alter cases, and prescribing penalty accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and Tucker to be a more flexible and equitable administration of justice possible or feasible, human beings being what they are...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''"But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict, he would seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel.'' '''--(quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, "Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame", pp. 116-30, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 124)''' ] 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Laurance Labadie is not a "modern day individualist anarchist." He lived from 1898 - 1975! And, yes he has problems with Murray Rothbard's opposition to "jury nullification." But he would also have problems with other individualist anarchists like Byington would wanted to get rid of juries altogether. Different individualists have different ideas. If you think there's one "individualist anarchism" that all individualist anarchists agree on, you couldn't be more mistaken.] 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Laurence Labadie died in modern times and wrote late into his life, thus he is a modern Individualist. Like I have said from the very beginning, there is no doubt that "Anarcho"-Capitalists view themselves as a modern manifestation of Individualist Anarchism. However, this is mostly a one-sided claim as few Indivdidualist Anarchists claim Capitalism as a form of Anarchism. I'd be more convinced if you quoted An-Indies rather than An-Caps. ] 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, it is not just anarcho-capitalists. None of those sources above are from anarcho-capitalists. They even include communist anarchists. Those sources are from a wide variety of scholars. Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist form of anarchism. The only people who deny this are POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages and a few anarcho-communists (of course).] 05:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::This is just a website and not a published text, but perhaps this could clear it up more Ref: http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/ac-vs-ia.html ] 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The very first sentence of that says: "Anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism." That is a terrible essay by the way. Burton was not very informed at that time. Today, he is an anarcho-capitalist and head the Individualist Anarchist Society at Berkeley.] 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Yes, I know what the first sentence says, but read the rest. It goes on to say, ''"but most people who are anarcho-capitalists don't identify primarily with individualist anarchism, and most people who explicitly identify themselves as individualist anarchists consider themselves class war anarchists, or anti-capitalists."'' then says ''"the principal difference between anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism is that anarcho-capitalists typically come from a philosophical background that values capitalism primarily as a value in and of itself, while individualist anarchists have a more egalitarian view of individualism, with no such allegiance to capitalism, and much less faith that the free markets will serve the social good on its own without some kind of limitation or constraints."'' Regardless of your opinion on the essay and regardless of his stance today, this stands true. Just as you had no regard of the Democratic Socialist you quoted not being an Anarchist. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::If anything, I think we can agree that An-Caps consider themselves Individualists, but many Individualists believe differently. Perhaps that could be the end of the whole conversation. ] 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Totally false. Name one individualist anarchists who thinks anarcho-capitallists are not individualist anarchists.] 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::Laurence Labadie, J.W. Baker, David Wieck, John Carroll, Eunice Minette Schuster, James J. Martin, Michael E. Coughlin, Charles H. Hamilton, etc. ] 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Prove your claim then. Give me a quote from an individualist anarchist that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. (I hope you're not equating Labadie's criticism of Rothbard's judicial system as being a claim that Rothbard was not an individualist anarchist, because that won't stand up at all. Individualists anarchists have disagreed with each other on fine points often).] 06:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::That essay was not written by a scholar. It was written by a kid on the net. It has never been published. Anyone can write an essay on post it on the net. There is all sorts of wrong information in there. It was written before he understood anarcho-capitalism and the 19th century form of individualism.] 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Do you think that I think the 19th century individualists were not opposed to capitalism? If so you're wrong. I've stated several times here that they opposed capitalism, but that is not in the sense of private ownership of the means of production and a free market. The oppose capitalism in the sense of prices not lining up with labor amounts. But the political system they would implement would indeed result in a profit making system. They were wrong, because they were bad economists. Modern individualist anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) reject the labor theory of value - we think it's wrong, and so do virtually all economists today.] 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"But the political system they would implement would indeed result in a profit making system." The difference is, they (and modern ones aside from "An"-caps) believed that profits should be divided equally amongst all producers, employer and employee alike with no hierarchy in the workplace. They were also against interest, loans and rent. Therefore, they are not capitalists because their system differs too significantly from capitalism. They do not support absentee ownership or Employer-Employee hierarchy. They, and modern ones aside from An-caps, were pro-worker but anti-collectivist. Whether or not you think they are bad economists, they are not capitalists in the archaic or modern sense unless one radically re-defines capitalism to exclude hierarchical profit and other usury and defines capitalism as laissez-faire (which would exclude Keynesianism as a form of capitalism). End of discussion. ] 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You're wrong. They did not think that "profits should be divided equally amongst all producers, employer and employee alike with no hierarchy in the workplace." YOu're just making this stuff up off the top of your head. They thought that that there would be no profits due to free market competition. It is not a matter of splitting profits up, but that they just wouldnt exist. They thought that competition would drive prices to match up with labor costs of production. And you're wrong about them opposing "Employer-Employee hierarchy." Voltairine de Cleyre, in explaining individulist anarchism, said, "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." And you're wrong that they opposed absentee ownership. They supported full private property rights for the product of labor, except most of them oppose it for land. Lysander Spooner was an exception. He had the same Lockean ownership of land philosophy as anarcho-capitalists.] 06:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::"You're just making this stuff up off the top of your head. They thought that that there would be no profits due to free market competition." Yes, they thought there would be no profits because there would be no surplus after they sum accumulated is divided up equally amongst producers. Simple economics. The rest of your post is very false. They supported employers and employed, but did not believe their relationship should be hierarchical. Employers are not bosses over employees in such a system. And yes, they supported private property, but not in the same way "An"-caps do: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::Ref: http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secG2.html#secg22 |
|
|
:::::::::::::No, you don't understand their labor theory of value. They thought that competition would cause prices to be proportional to labor amounts. There would be no "surplus" to divide up. You need to educate yourself on individualist anarchism because you're completely wrong on everything so far.] 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Please, just stop this now, I'm getting tired of your circular arguments and historical revisionism. Anarcho-Capitalists consider themselves Individualist Anarchists, but not the other way around for the most part. If you want a list of texts from Individualist Anarchists which explicity say that Capitalism cannot be Anarchistic: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*Eunice Minette Schuster - Native American Anarchism: A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism Smith College Studies in History, Vol. XVII, Nos. 1-4, October, 1931-July, 1932 (Loompanics Unlimited,1983) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*James J. Martin - Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908 Adrian Allen Associates, 1953 (1957, 1970) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*John Carroll - Break-Out from the Crystal Palace. The Anarcho-Psychological critique: Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1974 |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*Michael E. Coughlin (editor); Charles H. Hamilton (editor); Mark A. Sullivan (editor) - Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty : A Centenary Anthology Michael E. Coughlin Publisher, 1986 |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*Frank H. Brooks (ed)- The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908) Transaction Publishers, 1994 ] 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Provide page numbers. Don't just start typing out names of books. You need to make your claims verifiable. Show me one quote from an individualist anarchist that says anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. YOu have shown yourself to know next to nothing about individualist anarchism.] 06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"You have shown yourself to know next to nothing about individualist anarchism." Are you kidding me? I've debunked your arguments at every turn and now you are reduced to your argument being nothing more than demanding page numbers. The reason I didn't post page numbers is because the whole books are dedicated to the subject. ] 06:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nonsense. I have a few of those books and none of say that individualist anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of anarchism.] 07:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::If a 19th century individualist anarchist says he opposes "capitalism" he's not talking about anarcho-capitalsm. They defined capitalism as state protection of capitalism from competion. For Tucker, it was the requirement that people have to get a charter to start a bank.] 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"If a 19th century individualist anarchist" I'm talking about 20th and 21st century Individaulist Anarchists. They are against both capitalism with state protection and so-called "anarcho-capitalism". Many notable "Anarcho"-Capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard himself, aruge that "an"-caps cannot claim the Individualist school because of the insurmountable differences. Like I said, end of discussion. ] 06:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No one is denying that 19th century individualist anarchists were opposed to capitalism, but that is only in the sense of prices not matching up with labor costs. They support a free market like anarcho-capitalists support. The difference is anarcho-capitalists think they are wrong. They are bad economists.] 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Misplaced Pages itself says: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::''"Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes viewed by those sympathetic to it as a form of individualist anarchism, despite the fact that the original individualist anarchists universally rejected capitalism (i.e., they opposed profit, which is seen as a fundamental characteristic of capitalism). Organizations such as mutualist.org remain dedicated to "free market anticapitalism," while individualists like Larry Gambone explicitly state that all capitalism is state capitalism. Nonetheless, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy considers herself to be an individualist, while admitting that the original individualists were universally anticapitalist. In addition, historian Guglielmo Piombini refers anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, though he offers no support for this statement."'' Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism ] 06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You don't get it do you? Anarcho-capitalism is a pro-profit form of individualist anarchism and the anarchism of Benjamin Tucker was an anti-profit form of individualist anarchism. But the political system of Tucker would actually result in profit, so it would be the same as anarcho-capitalism (except on the issue of land ownership, which Tucker didnt think was as important as the banking issue). He was a bad economist.] 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"Anarcho-capitalism is a pro-profit form of individualist anarchism" If it is pro-profit, pro-leasing, pro-interest, pro-renting and pro-loaning, it is NOT Individualist Anarchism. What about that do YOU not get? You can't claim to be an "Individualist" and then disagree with 3/4 of the main tenants of it. That would be like claiming to be an Anarcho-Communist who believes in wages. "But the political system of Tucker would actually result in profit" This has yet to be shown as the Individualist Anarchist communities of the US did no such thing. As I said, we accept that An-Caps claim to be of Individualist heritage, but they are widely not accepted as Individualists in return by other side during the 19th, 20th or 21st century. Their claim is one-sided and remains controversial and suspect amongst Anarchists (of all kinds except self-claimed "An"-Caps) as we view it like claiming to be a triangle with four sides. In the true Anarchist spirit, we allow "An"-Caps the freedom to say whatever they want. However, we can't be expected to be forced to agree with their claims. There's nothing left to discuss. ] 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I see what you're problem is. You're simply restricting your definition of "individualist anarchism" to the 19th century form. But, no, you do not have to agree with Tucker to be an individualist anarchist. All you have to be as an individualist that is an anarchist. Scholars consider anarcho-capitalism to be an individualist anarchism. How about Max Stirner? He is not for markets, but he's an individualist anarchist too. Again, individualist anarchism is simply any anarchist philosophy that is pro-individualism and anti-collectivism/communism. You can be pro-profit, anti-profit, pro-market, anti-market, pro-natural law, amoralist, egoist, etc. There is no one "individualist anarchism." Individualist anarchism is just a broad category. As far as I know, there are no two individualist anarchists that have identical philosophies.] 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::My problem is that being a pro-profit/pro-rent/pro-interest Individualist Anarchist is like being a pro-wage Communist Anarchist or an anti-State Fascist. It's like a four-sided trinagle. "You can be pro-profit, anti-profit, pro-market, anti-market, etc." To be pro-profit automatically counts one as not being an Individualist Anarchist just as being anti-State automatically makes one a non-Fascist. Individualist Anarchism is more than just an abstract social philosophy, it is also an economic and political system. It takes more than a mere support of markets to make one an Individualist Anarchist. Collectivist Anarchists today mainly support Participatory Economics, which is arguably a form of a collectively-owned market, but they are not Individualists. "Anarcho"-Capitalism is it's own "anarchist" (IMHO, classical liberal) school of thought. I don't see why that is such a bad thing.] 07:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Well you're wrong then. There is no requirement to be anti-profit to be an individualist anarchist. I provided like 15 or so source above from various scholars - none of them anarcho-capitalists - and including anti-capitalist anarchists - that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. You're coming up with your own definition of anarchism by requiring an individualst anarchist to have a labor theory of value. There is no such requirement.] 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::I would need proof that the sources you quoted were not anarcho-capitalists. What kind of ideology did they belong to? And I would find non-anarchist sources questionable as most likley their knowledge of Anarchism is limited or at least misconstrued. My point was that while Individualist Anarchists do support making "profit" by selling things on the market, they oppose wage hierarchy and support all employers and employees alike making the same wage. Thus eliminating surplus that would create profit for a private owner. If "An"-caps are oppposed to that and believe in hierarchical wages and hierarchical authority in the workplace, they are not Individualist Anarchists. That is not the only difference that "Anarcho"-Capitalists have with Individualist Anarchists, there are several more insurmountable differences such as hierarchy, interest, loans, etc. Like I said, "Anarcho"-Capitalism is it's own school seperate from Individualism but has overlap. I don't see what that is such a problem. ] 21:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::And why would you think anarcho-capitalism is a "classical liberal" school of thought but not Tucker's? THe labor theory of value came from classical liberalism. 19th century individualist anarchism is considered to be classical liberalism taken to the extreme. Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand subscribe to neoclassical economics.] 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"And why would you think anarcho-capitalism is a "classical liberal" school of thought but not Tucker's?" I do classify it as a school of Classical Liberalism. It's a Classical Liberal form of Socialism while "Anarcho"-Capitalism is an anti-State (at least they claim) reincarnation of Classical Liberal Capitalism. If you want to be techinical, Anarcho-Communism was formed from Classical Liberalism as well. Anarcho-Communism first became a coherent political philosophy in Europe around 1649 during the English Revolution with the Diggers and Levellers movement. The ideas were expressed in their book "The New Law of Righteousness" which was an early Communist Anarchist text influenced by 17th century Classical Liberalism. During the French Revoltion, the Egalitarians were Communist Anarchists who saw their beliefs as the logical conclusion of Liberalism in their text "The Manifesto of Equals". Communist Anarchism became more influenced by Socialism (mostly the non-Marxist kind) later on in the 19th century. Individualist Anarchism actually spawned from 18th and early 19th century Utopian Socialism from thinkers such as Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier. It became influenced more by Classical Liberalism later on. ] 21:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Just a heads up -- this doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Full Shunyata, I asked you to more precisely define what "pro-" or "anti-" means in this context. Your only definition was one that pretty clearly excludes individualists. They do ''not'' oppose people trying to make a profit, they just think it would be competed away on a free market. Of course, we're going to keep arguing in circles like this for a while, so brace yourselves. ] 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:"They do ''not'' oppose people trying to make a profit, they just think it would be competed away on a free market." They do not oppose personal profits for individual producers, they don't think that profit would be competed away, they think it would divied away because they support employers and employees being paid the same amount, thus eliminating the surplus that would be profit in a capitalist system. Tucker and Proudhon both said that in such a system, the producers and the owners are the same people and would this make a capitalist who pockets the profits redundant. So yes, they are "pro-profit" if profit is defined simply as the sum accumulated by selling. They are "anti-profit" if profit means surplus value given to a private owner over employees. ] 21:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Okay, but again, that's not "opposing profit"; that's "supporting a specific system and thinking profit would not arise under such circumstances". Understand the difference? Of course, Tucker actually did distinguish "entrepreneurial profit" from "monopoly profit", and had no problem with the former, but let's see if we can nail down meanings first. ] 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Understand the difference?" Yes, I could agree with that but it still sounds a bit like a quibble over semantics. It's about like saying, "I'm opposed to the Death Penalty but don't mind if prison circumstances end up with the person being executed." Probably a good way to put it would be that they are not opposed to personal producer profits but are oppposed to unequal surplus value profits. ] 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's '''not''' semantics. When you say someone "opposes profits", its unclear what you mean, and seems to (if anything) imply you would intervene whenever you see someone receiving a profit. It's important to distinguish what this means. Their "opposition" to profit is a belief that it would not arise, *not*, as they say over and over, that such relationships should be prevented specifically because they involve profit. Also, I don't understand how your analogy relates to the situation (because it doesn't) and your way of putting it is false. They are not "against" *any* result that emerges from what they consider a free market. '''They just don't think it would happen.'''] 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm not being unclear because there is a general consensus on what the term "profit" means. It means positive surplus value acquired from the selling of labor products that is retained by the seller (owner). If the sum of money made from selling a product is not a surplus value is split up amongst everyone equally, it is not a "profit" it is a "wage". "Their "opposition" to profit is a belief that it would not arise, *not*, as they say over and over" No, that is what you continue to say but it is not correct. Benjamin Tucker said, ''""Interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder."'' '''''' He went on to say, ''"the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit would not exist and labour would secure its natural wage, its entire product."'' '''''' In another case, Tucker says, ''"each man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital"'' and ''"become a great hive of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals" combining "to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle."'' '''''' I hope that is clear. As Communist Anarchist Alexander Berkman said, ''"f labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism."'' which is a perfect explanation of Individualist Anarchism. It is Classical Liberal Socialism that is against Capitalist market profits. You also say, "They are not "against" *any* result that emerges from what they consider a free market" Yes they are, they are against coercion, force and domination/hierarchy that could occur in a market system, which is why they are called ANARCHISTS. If they are not opposed to results such as force, corecion and hierarchy, THEY ARE NOT ANARCHISTS. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You are showing a poor knowledge of Individalist Anarchism. ] 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::You say "I'm not being unclear because there is a general consensus on what the term "profit" means. It means positive surplus value acquired from the selling of labor products that is retained by the seller (owner)." Nothing could be further from the truth. That's an obscure Marxist-like definition of profit. The consensus definition of profit is simply the money one receives for selling something that is over the money that it costs to produce and bring it to market (in other words, net income). The 19th century individualists had a Marxist-like definition of profit. They defined it as the wealth that one receives that is over the value of one's labor. That is nonsense in today's economics, because labor is not considered to have objective value. One always recieves wealth that is equal to the value of his labor, because the value of labor is subjective. The 19th century individualists thought that competition in a free market would cause prices paid for things to align with the amount of labor exerted. Therefore things produced with a certain amount of labor would be exchanged for things that reqired the same amount of labor to produce. Labor itself would be paid with what required an equal amount of labor to produce. In other words, there would be no "profit" as they defined it. They thought this would naturally happen if the state stopped restricting competition. (Of course, we know today that they were wrong, because it is not the amount of labor that determines relative prices in a free market but marginal utility). Again, you can't equivocate their definition of "profit" and how "profit" is defined in mainstream economics.] 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"...profit is imply the money one receives for selling something that is over the money that it costs to produce and bring it to market" That is not true. On a capitalist market system, a private owner sells a product produced by labor (their employees) and receives a sales return sum on it. The income that a business owner receives is the extra cost they sold it for as well as a portion of all the returns while the income than an employee receives is a wage (the lefovers after subtracting cost production). Under capitalism, workers not only create sufficient value (i.e. produced commodities) to maintain existing capital and their own existence, they also produce a surplus. This surplus expresses itself as a surplus of goods, in other words an excess of commodities compared to the number a workers' wages could buy back. It has nothing to do with Marxism and everything to do with reality. Even non-Marxists such as Adam Smith and Maynard Keynes agreed on this. "That is nonsense in today's economics, because labor is not considered to have objective value." This is if you go along with Marginalist/STV economics which is very flawed (as was David Ricardo's LTV). It assumes that the value of the wages is equal to the marginal utility of the value of the products. In other words for example, a worker who agrees to work in a sweatshop does "maximise" her "utility" by so doing so. However, this is very questionable as the marginal utility of product cannot be determined by consumers unless they first know the '''price'''. So as a method of determining price, marginal utility ignores the differences in purchasing power between individuals and assumes the legal fiction that corporations are individual persons and assumes all prices are determined on a reactionary basis by powerful consumers who can shop wherever they want and buy whatever they want at any time. The subjective theory cannot really explain why '''any''' price is the equilibrium price, as opposed to any other because it ignores that an objective measure is required to base "subjective" evaluations upon in a market system. Since marginalism focuses on exhange and ignores production, assuming the income is equivocal to the marginal cost of production and marginal utlity on the market, it does not offer a suitable explanation of what profit is because it does not explain why producers are paid less than non-producers who own production. It assumes that products are not sold at a surplus and that prices are purely reaction to consumer behavior. Which is, of course, nonsense but has a kernel of truth in it. The kernel of truth is that individuals, groups, companies, and workers do indeed value goods and consume/produce them and so the use-value of a good is a highly subjective evaluation, and varies from case to case. The problem is, if this is true then no objective price can be put on anything and market prices cannot be reactionary as there is no objective value. This aside, Individualists thought that after paying all labor (the employers are laboreres as well in Individualism) there would be no surplus. ] 00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::It is hard to know where to begin because what you're saying is nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the marginalist theory of value, and no understanding of the 19th century individualist labor theory of value. "Value" refers to market price.] 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You say, "Labor itself would be paid with what required an equal amount of labor to produce." This is if you go along with Marginalist/STV economics which is very flawed (as was David Ricardo's LTV)." No. That is what the 19th century individualists labor theory of value says. They think that that's what happens in a free market. Marginalism says that's wrong.] 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Marginalism does not ignore difference in purchasing power. It totally acknowledges it. What I pay for a good depends on the marginal utility of what I have to trade for it. The less I have of smoething the greater the marginal utility, and therefore the worth to me. And, therefore the less willingess to trade it away.] 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Marginalism is not "the subjective theory of value." It is premised on the subjective theory of value, which says that for something to have value (to have a price) it has to be useful and it has to be scarce (not sufficient to fully meet demand). The subjective theory of value is universally accepted today. Things do not have a price if no one has any use for them. Marginalism says that relative prices are dependent on the least urgent use of an object (which is too complicated to go into here). Market price doesn't depend on labor. For example, I can control a natural spring and charge people to drink from it. I haven't exerted any labor at all, but that water still has a price. Labor theory of value is useless. Anyway, this is too complicated to explain to you in detail. You need to learn about it yourself.] 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::"Marginalism is not "the subjective theory of value."" I know but it is the predecessor to that theory. I should have been more specific. "The subjective theory of value is universally accepted today." It is universally accepted amongst Neoliberal and Neoconservative economists, it not accepted amongst other economists (who are the minority). However, popularity of an idea does not mean that it is correct, that would be Argument By Popularity. It used to be "universally accepted" that Black slaves were only 3/5 Human for instance. "I haven't exerted any labor at all, but that water still has a price." Of course, but this is not a suitable basis for an entire theory. The problem with STV is that it claims values are subjective, but then tries to use an OBJECTIVE measure (prices) to determine marginal utility. If value was really subjective, people could go to a store and decide what they will pay for an item and prices would not exist. But in a market, people need to know prices before deciding marginal utility. Another problem is that is focuses very little on production and focuses most of its attention on exchange. "Labor theory of value is useless." Both of them have their good points and their weak points. I wouldn't say that either is useless but neither of them can explain a market fully. ] 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::There is no argument against the STV. Things don't have a price unless people want them. It's too obvious. No one disagrees. You've got the theory of marginal utility backwards. You say "The problem with STV is that it claims values are subjective, but then tries to use an OBJECTIVE measure (prices) to determine marginal utility." It's actually the reverse. It uses marginal utility to explain differences in prices. Things with lower marginal utility have a lower prices, like water. Things with a higher marginal utility have a higher prices, like diamonds.] 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::"There is no argument against the STV." Absolutely false, there are many arguments against it. Here's one if you want one - Ref: http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secC1.html "Things don't have a price unless people want them." People need to know the price before they can determine whether they want them or not. This is just common sense. "It uses marginal utility to explain differences in prices." But there is no explanation how one can guage objective marginal or equalibrium price. There is nothing to explain why one price is equilibrium while another is not. ] 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::HaHa. You give me the Anarchist FAQ as a source. That thing was written by a moron. It's wrong. It says "the STV states that the price of a commodity is determined by its marginal utility to the consumer and producer." That's not true. The STV just states that for a thing to have a price it has to be useful to someone, and it has to be scarce (it can't be in unlimited supply). The theory of marginal utility explains why things have different prices. Things have different prices because they have different marginal utility - it comes down to supply and demand. Marginal utility is a function of the usefulness of a unit of a thing and the supply of it (for both sides of a trade).] 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::"That thing was written by a moron." You're going to have to do better than that to prove your point. "The author is a moron ." is not an intellectual rebuttal. LOL "The STV just states that for a thing to have a price it has to be useful to someone, and it has to be scarce (it can't be in unlimited supply)." That's what "marginal utility" means. It's not that hard. ] 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::Ok, it looks like I'm going to have to break down and explain marginal utility to you. (Fortunately I just wrote much of the intro in the marginal utility article, so I can copy over some of it). The marginal utility of an object is defined as the least urgent use that it satisfies. For example, let us assume that a person has three wants and the satisfaction of each want each requires one gallon of water, so that satisfying all his wants requires three gallons of water. In descending priority, the most urgent want is to satisfy his thirst, the second most want is to give water to his dog, and his least urgent want is to water his roses. The least urgent use (the marginal utility) of one gallon of water when he has two is therefore to give water to his dog. If he has three gallons of water, then the least urgent use would be to water his roses. The "marginal utility," of any given gallon of water depends on how much water he has. It's supply and demand. Prices are a function of usefulness (and therefore demand) and supply. The reason that a gallon of water has a lower price than a gallon of gasoline is because the marginal utility of water is lower than the marginal utility of gasoline. The overriding reason for that is that there is a larger supply of water being offered in the market place. The STV (which is not the marginal theory of value) just says that in order to have any prices at all, an object has to be useful in satisfying human wants and it has to be not in unlimited supply. In other words, somebody has to want it and there has to be just as much or less than people want. Anything that is in unlimited supply is free (such as air), and anything no one wants is free. The reason it is called the "Subjective" theory of value is because the same object can have different usefulness for different people. Marginalists recognize that the STV does not explain differences in prices. That's why they critiqued it and came up with marginalism. The marginal utility theory recognizes that it is not total utility that determines prices but marginal utility - the least urgent use of an object.] 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::The problem with this theory, like I said again, is that he must know the price before he can gauge the full marginal utility. "Prices are a function of usefulness (and therefore demand) and supply." That was the primary problem of this theory because prices act as an independent variable while consumption is a dependent variable. You don't buy 3 hams, even if that is the marginal utility of it to you, unless you first know the price. The person's gauging of marginal utility is determined by an independent variable first. "The reason that a gallon of water has a lower price than a gallon of gasoline is because the marginal utility of water is lower than the marginal utility of gasoline." Not to a person who lives in the Middle East. It's hard to make an objective market price around something that is supposed to be subjective to each person or group of people. "The reason it is called the "Subjective" theory of value is because the same object can have different usefulness for different people." Which is why it's problematic to call the theory "subjective" because it tries to make a subjective dependent variable an objective independent variable. There is some truth in this theory, just like in the LTV, but neither of them are complete theories. I would say that LTV is more useful for analysis of production while STV is more useful for analysis of exhange. Understand that I am not a proponent of any theory of value, so I don't have a pet theory value to push. ] 07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::No, it is not true that a person "must know the price before he can gauge the full marginal utility." The marginal utility determines the price. It starts at the individual level. For example, if the marginal utility of a gallon of water is the usefulness in watering my flowers, then I am willing to exchange one gallon of water for anything that satisfies a higher priority want than watering my flowers. Let's say you have some pizza. I am a willing to trade you one gallon of water for two pieces of pizza. The price of a gallon of water is then two pieces of pizza. I didn't have to know any price beforehand. The trade itself sets the price. Mutual decision based upon the marginal utility of what we have to trade is what sets the price. We don't care how much labor it took to make the pizza or the water.] 07:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::"The marginal utility determines the price. It starts at the individual level." You are claiming this as merely a dogmatic assertion, but there is no reasoning to back it up. If a person wants three gallons of water, they will naturally fit how much they buy around how much it costs. If three gallons of water is too expensive, naturally they would think, "Oh, manybe I can just do with two gallons and spit the second gallon for my dog and for my roses." You also said, "I am a willing to trade you one gallon of water for two pieces of pizza. The price of a gallon of water is then equal to two pieces of pizza." This is in a barter system, you have a problem trying to claim the market system works this way. For instance when you want to buy a pizza, you decide what type of pizza depending on how much money you have and how much you are willing to spend given the price and how much money you have. The price is clearly the independent variable in any market system. ] 07:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::You still don't understand. The trade itself sets the price. The price does not exist beforehand. Yes, the example was barter but it holds for money too. Money is just another commodity. The marginal utility of what you have determines what you will exchange it for. You will only exchange what you have for something that has a higher marginal utility (and marginal utility is always subjective) than what you're giving in exchange. And, whatever you're giving in exchange for something, whether it's pizza, gold coins, denominated paper, or even units of labor, that is the price of whatever you are purchasing. If a trade doesn't take place, then there is no market price.] 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Now of course, you are right that there is no argument that completely invalidates the STV. But it is also true that there is no argument that completely invalidates the whole LTV (I'm not talking about Ricardo's LTV, I'm referring to the later nuanced and subjectivized LTV). This is of course assuming that labor or goods and services can be assigned a numerical monetary value however. ] 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::The LTV is bad at explaining prices. It seems to explain some prices but then exceptions keep coming up that it can't explain. That's why it's been discarded. The marginal utility of theroy does explain prices, including prices of objects that have no labor embodied (natural resources). So far, it's been able to explain all differences in prices. Maybe someone will find an exception that marginal utility theory can't explain and then a new theory will have to be found. But it hasnt happened yet.] 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Even with it's flaws STV is generally good at explaining market exchange as long as it keeps in mind that consumer choice is a '''de'''pendent rather than '''in'''dependent variable. The LTV is generally better at explaining production but not as good at explaining exchange and consumption. There is are theories that I think are better than the LTV and the STV but are not mainstream. They are the SLTV (Subjectivized Labor Theory of Value) and the LSTV (Laborized Subjective Theory of Value). I don't believe in any theory of value, but I find these two to at least be better reference guides in a market system. ] 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::We're not talking about the STV. We're talking about the marginal utility theory of value. You can't find a price that contradicts the theory. It's easy to find contradictions to the labor theory. For example, why does wine cost more if its aged more even though there is no more labor embodied in it? Or why can two paintings that took the same amount of labor to create have such drastically different prices? Why if I had a natural spring on my water, would the water have a price at all if I didn't labor to create the spring and the water? You can find no such exceptions for the marginalist theory. So what "flaws" are you talking about?] 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::" You can't find a price that contradicts the theory." That's a rather lofty claim. You sound like a Fundamentalist Christian trying to claim that the Bible is "inerrant". At any given time, there is a given amount of unpaid labor in circulation and this is either in some form of unpaid goods or services. Each company tries to maximise its share of the available total and if a company does realise an above average share, it means that some other companies recieve less of a share than average. A large firm will receive a larger share of the surplus. However, the '''source''' of these profits do not lie in market, but in production. You cannot buy what does not exist. In order to make more money, money must be transformed into capital (ie. worplaces, machinery and other "capital goods"). In and ot itself, capital (like money) doesn't make anything. Capital only becomes productive in the labor process, when workers use capital. The price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers wages when they were produced. The labor contained in these "surplus-products" is the source of profit for an owner, which has to be realised on the market (in practice, of course, the value represented by these surplus-products is distributed throughout all the commodities produced in the form of profit - the difference between the cost price and the market price). If a profit cannot be made, a good is not produced, regardless of how many consumers "subjectively value" it. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::''"In the end, the STV just states that prices are determined marginal utility; marginal utility is measured by prices. Prices... are nothing more or less than prices. Marginalists, having begun their search in the field of subjectivity, proceeded to walk in circle".'' ''''''] 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::But back to individualist anarchism, the 19th century individualists thought that in a free market that prices of things would line up with the amounts of labor embodies in those things. That theory is not taken seriously anymore. There is no reason why that would happen. People don't care how much labor was behind something when they buy something. All they care about is how useful it is to them in comparison to how useful what they're giving in exchange is.] 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::There are a lot of unsupportable generalizations here, about what is or isn't "taken seriously" (as if there was agreement) and about "what people care about" (as if there was agreement). There are still market anarchists who believe that the "productiveness of capital" is indeed a myth, base their opposition to ''capital''ism there, and expect that in a non-capitalist free market labor will trade for labor (for the most part, and not in any mechanical sense.) Any attempt to base any part of a Misplaced Pages on what "everyone believes now" or "nobody believes anymore," when there are obvious counter-examples (such as then enthusiastic audience for Kevin Carson's book), is inescapably going to be Original Research. Modern day mutualists and Tuckerite individualist might be ''looney as can be'' in your mind, but that's not the same as saying that they don't exist, or that the continuation of the original individualist anarchist tradition is somehow not notable. Honestly, we know what your opinion and ''visceral reaction'' is to any form of LTV. But when we pursue our opinions, beyond positions we can verify without original research, that POV-pushing. ] 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::"Original research" or not, the theory is wrong. No economist agrees Carson that labor would is exchanged with equal amounts of labor in a free market economy. It's absurd.] 17:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Whatever. You're free to believe that. But the "absurdity" you're talking about is nevertheless of a sort that has absolutely no standing in the Misplaced Pages editing process. Everyone knows what you think, but it absolutely can't form a part of the rationale for the entry, just as most of the best historical research I have done can't be represented here. ] 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::Like I am arguing here that the article should say that Tucker's theory is "absurd." Obviously I'm not.] 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Definitions, history, Tucker == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ideas develop, their meanings, and the labels we assign to them, shift, sometimes rapidly. Important ideas are nearly always subject to discursive and ideological struggle, so that they have multiple, contested meanings at any given time. If you doubt me, look back up the page, where there is ample evidence that ''anarchism'' is one of those contested terms, along with ''capitalism'' and ''socialism''. It is a fallacy that dictionaries provide meanings of words. Good dictionaries freeze briefly the various present meanings of words. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' is exemplary in this respect for English, although, as we have proven here, the growth of electronic archives will allow us to go beyond even that work. But we'll ''without question'' go in the direction of identifying ''even more diversity'' if we are to pursue even just the collection of actual acts of meaning-making. '''Policing meaning is futile. Struggling for it is ''in some sense'' necessary, but not really appropriate to ''this'' forum.''' But the struggle for labels is not really a political struggle. In political terms, it doesn't matter what people calls themselves; what matters is how they'll behave "after the revolution," or in the process of "building the new within the shell of the old," or whatever. . . . Understanding what is at stake in our disagreements is a task worthy of attention both in terms of generating good Misplaced Pages articles ''and'' advancing political agendas, but we're not too good at ''understanding'' each other. ''That said'', what does it matter that Benjamin R. Tucker, most prominent if not necessarily most profound or most representative of the American individualist anarchists ''of his era'', said something backhandedly nice about "capitalism" and something less nice about "socialism and communism" in the 1930s, when he was no longer active in the movement, when he had learned to love the state enough to support the Allies in WWI, and long after he had become convinced that his particular approach to social change would not have a chance until after a general collapse? (Read roughly 273-275 in Martin's ''Men Against the State'' to get his take on Tucker's state of mind. Go to Champaign, IL and consult the original letters, ''something none of us here appear to have done'', if you don't want things "out of context.") Answer: probably not much. We know the steps by which he got from the "anarchism=socialism" position quoted to the position in the 1930s. We know that "communism and socialism" in the 1930s most likely meant Bolshevism and Fabianism, or state central-planning forms of other sorts. We know that it was a low-point for individualist anarchism, despite the continued efforts of groups like the Mutualist Associates. We know, again from sources cited above, that a range of mutualists, agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and other market anarchists have once again reconsidered the appropriate meanings of "capitalism" and "socialism," and that there is certainly nothing like a consensus among market anarchists that they are not socialists. That's a lot that we know, and maybe it's not much help, if we want to collectively keep gyrating around the question of which dictionary we think expresses TRUTH. But, having been in some version of these debates for over a decade, I think it's nothing short of ''ridiculous'' to be having the same conversations I had with the Caplan partisans on Usenet in the mid-90s, right here and right now. It's particularly frustrating to see the very good voices that emerged after some of those old debates, like Spangler and Long, who probably both ought to have their own pages here, treated summarily as more of the same. I'm going to step back for awhile, and see if there are factual issues that can be clarified. I would encourage my social anarchist and an-caps comrades alike to try something similar. I don't imagine my encouragement will help a bit. ] 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is probably the most sensible thing any of us have said in this mess of a conversation/debate so far. Definitions change, but there are general ideas that don't change. To classify Tucker a non-socialist would require a drastic revisionist re-defining of socialism to mean "economic collectivism" and a drastic revisionist re-definition of capitalism to mean "economic privatism". Both of these definitions are problematic because there definitely were and are socialists who believe in "private ownership" (such as Tuckerists, Proudhonists, Utopian Socialists, etc) but not in the same sense as capitalist private ownership. Also, Tucker himself said, ''""the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea."'' '''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe the Anarcho-Capitalist school should be classified as it's own school that happens to share some overlap with Individualist Anarchism but are not synonymous; just as Collectivist Anarchism is classified as it's own school that happens to share some overlap with Communist Anarchism but are not synonymous. It is odd and troublesome if An-Caps claim to be Individualists but admit they do not agree with the likes of Spooner and Tucker on key premises, but then claim -- despite all that -- that it is anarchists who reject them. It's almost like trying to justify a law or belief by citing Leviticus but then saying "but of course all that God stuff is just absurd." The most uncomplicated way to solve this whole dilemma is to agree that Anarcho-Capitalism is an anti-State form of Classical Liberal Capitalism while Individaulist Anarchism is a Classical Liberal form of Socialism. ] 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::All it takes to be an individualist anarchists is to be an individualist and an anarchist. Tucker and Spooner by no means have a monopoly on individualist anarchism. It is not necessary to agree with them on anything other than individualism and wanting to eliminate the state, to be an individualist anarchist. Afterall, that is the only thing that makes Tucker and Spooner individualist anarchists. Max Stirner didn't agree with Tucker and Spooner either (they don't even agree with each other), but he's an individualist anarchist as well.] 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The problem with this approach is that it simply erases people's self-identifications. If we accept the premise that "all it takes to be an individualist anarchists is to be an individualist and an anarchist," then we have to make other sorts of distinctions: separate out the "Boston anarchists" or the "''Liberty'' group" or something, in order to maintain the historical and theoretical differences. Of course, since (as the citations above, and the rejections of them here, show) ''anarcho-capitalism'' is not unanimous on some of the key issues, we are probably ''forced'' to use multiple strategies to clarify the range of positions. The dictionary approach ''can't'' clarify things sufficiently by itself. The historical approach probably can eventually, particularly if we make good use of the various sub-pages, and if we don't constantly attempt to police every use of every word. Clarity comes out of good writing, which allows the particular use of a particular word in a particular context to be evident, ''even if that use appears novel to the uninitiated''. Clear writing is hard to do by committee, and we've seen plenty of instances where the drive to police the use of this or that word has destroyed the sense of sentences. That's simply self-defeating. ] 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You're arguing what's already been done by scholars. Individualist anarchism is not considered to have any unifiying ideas other than being individualists and opposes of the state. Nobody has a monopoly on individualist anarchism. Can I stop someone from being an individualist anarchist because they don't agree with me on various issues? No. As long as they are anti-collectivists and oppose the state, they are individualist anarchists. Scholars consider both Max Stirner and Lysander Spooner to be individualist anarchists. What is the similarity between them? Very little except for anti-collectivism and opposition to the state. Why do scholars say anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists? Same reason. There is no reason for individualist anarchists to agree on things. Just as there is no reason for "anarchists" to agree on anything except for opposition to the state.] 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Actually, I'm arguing what has been done by ''good'' scholars, who are capable of making their definitions and assumptions clear. If ''I'' was writing a solo article, it would be easy to ditch the "real anarchist" question (mentioning self-identifications along the way), deal with Stirner as an ''egoist'', indentify the ''antinomic'' (or ''triadic'') character of Proudhon and Greenes mutualism (thereby emphasizing their individualism, without confusing them with the next generation), deal with the various varieties of individualist anarchism within the ''Liberty'' group and its fellow-travellers (including the important ''changes'' in the nature of the individualism of those who adopted egoism later), and so on, until Rothbard claims very partial filiation. There is nothing particularly difficult about making this account clear, if I pay attention to the developments of the movements and vocabularies. But there are a thousand ways to screw it up, if I attempt to apply a single, abstract set of definitions. IMHO, we are currently screwing up more than otherwise, through sheer collective stubbornness and ideological myopia (or monomania in some cases.) ] 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Individualist anarchism" does not mean anything more than "an individualist form of anarchism." It's not a philosophy in itself beyond that. "Anarchism" is the same way. "Anarchism" is not a philosophy but a set of philosophies that are anarchistic.] 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And about self-identification, that's irrelevant. Godwin didn't call himself anarchist, Warren didn't, Tolstoy didn't, and Stirner didn't. But they are all considered to be anarchists. The reason Tolstoy didnt call himself an anarchist is beause he associated the term with violence. The reason Rothbard didnt call himself an individualist anarchists is because he associated it with the flawed economics of Tucker, even though he was obviously an individualist and an anarchist. But all that "individualist anarchism" means is an individualist form of anarchism. I don't think Tucker and Spooner ever called themselves individualists anarchists either.] 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::"All it takes to be an individualist anarchists is to be an individualist and an anarchist." In that case, Egoistic Communist Anarchists are also Individualist Anarchists. What you said is incorrect because Individualism is very specific as both a philosophy and an economic system. Individualist Anarchists supported communalistic individualism while "An"-caps support a type of stark "rugged" individualism with no communal concern. "It is not necessary to agree with them on anything other than individualism and wanting to eliminate the state, to be an individualist anarchist." You apparently don't agree with them on Individualism because you reject their economic system and much of their philosophy. Also, a mere opposition to the state does not make on an Anarchist, to be an Anarchist one must oppose all forms of hierarchy and authority. There you go again trying to use textbook definitions rather than Anarchist definitions. Trying to claim to be an Individualist but sharing nothing in common with them other than a (questionable) opposition to the State and a love of "free markets" (although your definition drastically differs from theirs to the point of being contradictory) but disagreeing with them on everything else is like claiming to be a Christian but disagreeing with almost all of Jesus' teachings. ] 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, an egoistic communist anarchist (if such a thing were possible) cannot be an individualist anarchists. Individualism is in opposition to collectivism. And, youre wrong. All that is required to be an anarchist is rejection of the state. Beyond that, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." (Anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 31). I do not submit to the authority of anarchists of history and what they think true anarchism is.] 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What you are demonstrating here is the infinite regress that the abstract ''dictionary approach'' will always suffer from here. Most anarchists would say they were individualists, even if they decide collective means of organization are in their best individual interest. Proudhon, Greene, Goldman, etc. all explicitly rejected the opposition you take as essential. ] 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't think you understand. Whether someone says he is an anarchist of not is irrelevant as to whether he actually is. Whether someone says they have an individualist form of anarchism is irrelevant to whether they actually do. The way Misplaced Pages works is what relay what the scholars who have published say who is or isn't an anarchist or an individualist or a collectivist. We do not decide for ourselves.] 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm quite aware how Misplaced Pages works, and how scholars work. You, on the other hand, invoke this notion of "actually being an anarchist" as if it was separable from what people say an anarchist is. In fact, having invoked "old" and "new" ways of defining things, you have not escaped the problem of ''who defines''. You have simply decided that "scholars" (without any notion of qualifying scholars in a particular field, as per Misplaced Pages's rather anti-scholarly criteria) get to decide what makes an anarchist, or a socialist, etc. (Though sometimes you say it is ''most people'' that decides, but ultimately the problem is the same.) As there is no consensus amongst the class of authorities ("published scholars") to which you appeal, on the essence of anarchism (or the meaning of the various qualities, sub-movements, and such, by which it could be defined precisely), you're left with a principle that brings you very little in terms of clarity. '''There is no consensus on the meaning of the terms.''' This should come as no surprise, since you have ''also'' been insisting that there is no "core" to the anarchist tradition. Here is an inescapable '''fact''', confirmed in our debates, and in the twists and turns of the literature on anarchism. |
|
|
:::::::* Even ''if'' (a big "if") the published sources agreed on definitions of "anarchism," we would have at least '''two'' of them: the abstract one which you prefer, and the internal definition of the anarchist movement. Call them ''little-a'' and ''Big-A'' anarchism if you want. There would also still be the common definition of "disorder." And there would be the history of how ideological and political struggle transformed the common definition in such a way that the present abstract definition is possible. |
|
|
:::::::If we explicitly take the multiple definitions and the process of ideological development into account, every school can be represented in our account, and we ''don't'' do the deciding about what the terms mean. We simply report what they ''meant,'' according to the sources. And where meanings are uncertain, we can say so, and provide primary source material for readers to interpret. ] 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is basically what I was trying to get at. We need to forget about "correct" or "best" or "modern" definitions. The placement of the lines of "capitalism" and "socialism" are completely arbitrary. Anarchists would probably be better off if we'd just drop those two words from our vocabularies entirely. At least then we could argue about actual ideas, instead of semantics. --] 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's why many anarcho-capitalists choose to simply call themselves "individualist anarchists" to avoid confusion over the meaning of "capitalism."] 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Aye, as well as "market anarchists". I think it's a good idea. --] 03:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is somewhat off-topic, but it is interesting to note that during the Anarchist Revolution of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, Individualist Anarchist communities arose alongside Collectivist Anarchist farms. Collectivist and Communist Anarchists respected the freedom of the Individualist communities to develop and traded with them. ] 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What individualist anarchist communities are you talking about? Benjamin Tucker said of the Spanish "anarchists," that "'Anarchism' in Spain is a misnomer" and that Spanish anarchists are a "crazy bunch".] 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"What individualist anarchist communities are you talking about?" During the Spanish Revolution, workers and farmers in Catalonia chased out business owners and large landowners. However, some small landowners desired to use their property to employ other small landowners and sell with each other and neighboring Communist Anarchist areas. The non-Individualist farmers agreed and there were small Individualist communities in Spain similar to Individualist communities in the US right next to Collectivist and Communist communities. Both of them enjoyed much higher production than they ever did under capitalism or Fascism. It doesn't matter what Tucker thought of the Spanish anarchists, facts are facts. Just like Kropotkin called Individualists "authoritarian petty landlords" but they didn't behave that way. ] 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Fascist economies are not capitalist. They're command economies - centrally planned. They're naturally going to be inefficient.] 01:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That is absolutely false. Fascism is a form of capitalism (most economists and historians agree on this). Fascism is not a command economy at all, the most common economic system of Fascism is corporatism where the state subsidizes large corporate entities and allows them complete deregulatory freedom. In Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy capitalist business owners were given complete power and were allowed to violently crush labor unions. ] 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Wow. You're really misinformed. In Fascist Italy, production and prices were set by the state. Mussolini spoke out against liberaralism. He said, "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual." The suppoed belief was that it was too risky to leave things to the free market. The state had to guide production and distribution. Nazi Germany, for a large part the economy was planned by the state as well. They are definitely not capitalist economies, as capitalism is defined today - a privately controlled system.] 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"In Fascist Italy, production and prices were set by the state." No, they were set by corporate entities and then backed by the State. And yes, Mussolini was against classical liberalism but so are many Capitalists today (such as Progressives, American Liberals and American Conservatives). "The suppoed belief was that it was too risky to leave things to the free market." Yes because Fascists realized that in a "free market" the corporate power of corporations could be challenged, so the State acted as a guard of capitalist interests. There was no state regulation or distribution in Italy but Nazi Germany did have a few Keyensian policies; but it largely followed deregulation corporate capitalism. Hitler said, ''"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."'' He was against liberal individualism and Marxist collectivism and embraced nationalistic collectivism and economic isolated individualism. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As Bullock put it, ''""While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism."'' ] 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Also, it should be noted that Adolf Hitler described the "State" in a different way than most people do. He described the "State" as a race rather than a hierarchical governmental instrument: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::''""The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." |
|
|
|
|
|
"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" |
|
|
|
|
|
"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position."'' '''''' ] 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Here is an article from Misplaced Pages itself on the economics of Fascism: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''"Fascism also operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote "superior" individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." '' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::http://en.wikipedia.org/Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies ] 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Full Shunyata, you are really getting carried away here. No offense to you, but are you seriously comparing fascism with anarcho-capitalism? Fascism, one of the most totalitarian, authoritarian states in existense, along with state communism? This is just a little to outrageous. Fascism is way beyond ordinary capitalism, it entails an authoritarian state that is run by corporations. Anarcho-capitalism is the antithesis to a fascist state as far as capitalism is concerned. '''There is no state!'''. This is one of the most outlandish assertions I've heard yet - ever. ] 02:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You misunderstood what I was trying to say and I'm sorry if it came off like I was trying to link the two. First, there is no such thing as "State Communism", that's an oxymoron. It's like trying to say "Anarcho-Fascism". However, there is arguably such a thing as "State Socialism". "Fascism is way beyond ordinary capitalism, it entails an authoritarian state that is run by corporations." Of course it is beyond 'ordinary' capitalism, it is basically capitalism with no democratic rights and nothing to curtail the authoritarian power of monopoly capital. I would argue that it can naturally occur in Capitalism, but of course I am not saying Anarcho-Capitalism is such a system. That's just downright insulting. "'''There is no state!'''" You talking about in "Capitalist Anarchism"? That's a claim they make, but I don't buy that claim. Private defense associations are virtually indistinguishable from a State, and private property in and of itself can be statist. A private proprieter (I'm talking about productive property, not personal property) can act like a one-person totalitarian state. The way Classical Liberals defined private property and a person's relationship to it is the very same way one defines a State and statesman's relationship to it. ] 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Fascist economic systems were the linking of business with the state, with pricing and production decisions being made by central planning. That is not capitalism. That is corporativism. It is like FDR tried to set up in the U.S. but was ruled as unconstitutional.] 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Fascism did not regulate the economy by central planning. It used state regulation to protect monopoly capital (corporations) from competing firms. That's what the Misplaced Pages article said of Fascist economics. ] 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I dont know why you keep referencing Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is garbage. Very unreliable. Fascist economies were planned economies. Business and government formed planning boards where it was set how much of what things would be produced and at what prices. These things were not left to the market, as they would be in a capitalist economy.] 07:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Misplaced Pages is garbage. Very unreliable." LOL, then why are you an editor here? It isn't Misplaced Pages article itself that is fact, it's the historians and the published texts the information is taken from that matters. It's an established fact that the Nazis and the Italian Fascists allowed complete economic power to corporate entities. The State just acted to buffer them from market trends and soften the effects of business losses. The claim that they were centrally-planned remains an unverified claim. They were only "centrally planned" if you consider corporate subsidies and State-backed economic corrections by capitalist firms to be "central planning". This has been said before, and it's a very fitting way to describe Fascism, "It's Social Democracy for the rich and market discipline for the poor." It's not laissez-faire capitalism (but then again, such a thing has never existed because even during the 19th century Western state governments subsidized agriculture and allowed tax kickbacks and trusts amongst large firms), but it is a form of capitalism. Just a very terrible form. ] 08:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Ok then, this is from the ] article, and it's sourced: "The Italian economy, having just emerged from a period of monetary stabilization, was not ready for this shock. Prices fell and production slowed. Unemployment rose from 300,787 in 1929 to 1,018,953 in 1933. Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government began enlisting the help of various cartels (consorzi) that had been created by Italian business leaders since 1922. The government offered recognition and support to these organizations in exchange for promises that they would manipulate prices in accordance with government priorities. A number of mixed entities were formed, called instituti or enti nazionali, whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and of the major businesses. These representatives discussed economic policy and manipulated prices and wages so as to satisfy both the wishes of the government and the wishes of business." Obviously that's a planned economy. A capitalist economy is left to market forces.] 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Huh? All you did is prove my point that Fascism is a terrible economic system as well as a terrible political system. That doesn't prove that it's a "planned economy". The only proof you have provided that it had anything like a planned economy was this, "A number of mixed entities were formed, called instituti or enti nazionali, whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and of the major businesses." It said Italy shifted to a 'mixed econommy' as the corporate Fascist economy caused economic decline, however, the quote notes that noational institutes simply represented government and business interests. It doesn't say anything about state planning. "The government offered recognition and support to these organizations in exchange for promises that they would manipulate prices in accordance with government priorities." Now that sounds more like state regulation, but if one reads up on history, one will find that there has never been a totally "free market" economy in any society in all of Capitalist history. In every capitalist economy, the State always steps in to help when business goes sour. The Misplaced Pages article also said that the government acted to PROTECT businesses when they were facing market decline by giving them adjusted policies to pull them out of decline or stagnation. Not exactly like Social Democracy or Keynesianism. ] 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::You don't know what a planned economy is. It means that prices, production, and investment are not left to private decision, but by regulation. In Fascist Italy, the state required a merger between business and state. Guilds were formed, and decisions were made on how much of what would be produced and the prices based on the goals of the state. Unregulated supply and demand were not in operation. What is it? You need an explicit statement that it was a planned economy? Ok, then: "Italy's economic life was stricyl regimented...An elaborate system of planned economy was set up to modernize, coordinate, and increase Italy's production of both industrial and agrictultural goods. The very complicated economic and political machinery that Mussolini created for these purposes was called the corporate state." (Seppy Basli, 268) Or, "Mussolini once again spoke of his work on coprorativism. He recognized that many had objected to his anticipation of a corporative planned economy. Mussolini acknolwedged that Spirito had become a 'monster' to all those who insisted on clinging to the remanants of economic liberalism..." (Anthony Gregor, Mussolini's Intellectuals, page 136) Or, "Graudally a planned economy was introduced...and the Leader declared that 'laissez-faire is out of date'" Denis Smith, Modern Italy, A political history, page 348) Contrast that with the modern definition of capitalism. The Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines capitalism as "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." Obviously, Fascist Italy was a planned economy, not a capitalist one.] 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"You don't know what a planned economy is." I know what it is better than you do. A "planned economy" does not necessarily mean a state-controlled economy. That's called a COMMAND ECONOMY. A planned economy can either be centrally planned or decentrally planned: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::''While the term planned economy usually refers to centrally-planned economies, it may also be used to refer to decentralized systems of planning such as participatory economics. .'' Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Planned_economy |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Anyway, a completely private economy, logically, is still a form of a planned economy contrary to mainstream economic jargon. It's just PRIVATELY PLANNED by private firms reacting to privitized market trends and actively working to control the market through market shares instead of central state regulating the economy. When people say "command economy" they generally mean a STATE command economy. A "laissez-faire" economy is simply a PRIVATE command/planned economy. And if you want to define capitalism solely as laissez-faire, that would discount Keynesianism and Mixed Western economies (like Europe and Canada) as form of Capitalism. According to your very narrow definition of Capitalism, ''"true"'' Capitalism has never existed anywhere. "Guilds were formed, and decisions were made on how much of what would be produced and the prices based on the goals of the state." That is incorrect, Fascist Italy left economic "syndicates" (his term for private corporations) to privately run the economy. The State only regulated CERTAIN corporations (not the entire economy) when they fell into debt or were about to lose out to competition. After they bounced back they were given complete freedom again. The State basically acted as a corporate safety net to protect the wealthy. "Unregulated supply and demand were not in operation." If you want to count temporary state protection under certain circumstances to be "regulated", then there has never been a Capitalist economy anywhere. Even during the Gilded Age and before that in America (or anywhere in Europe or the rest of the colonized world) the State has NEVER been completely uninvolved in the economy. You're tieing yourself into a logical knot here. The national representatives in Fascist Italy discussed economic policy and manipulated prices and wages that satisfied both the wishes of the government and the wishes of business. So the economy and the government were still two seperate entities, but the economy was set up in a way to make both of them happy. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::''"the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."'' '''''' ''"While nearly everywhere else private property was bearing the major burdens and suffering from the hardest blows of the depression, in Italy, thanks to the actions of this Fascist government, private property not only has been saved, but has also been strengthened."'' '''''' ] 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::If it's not a market economy, then it's a planned economy. Very simple. Fascist Italy was not a market economy. Decisions about production and pricing and wages, were not left to the market. And, yes, failing businesses were subsidized. That's not capitalist at all. That's central planning. In a capitalist economy, the survival of a business depends on market forces.] 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::"If it's not a market economy, then it's a planned economy." Absolutely false. A market economy is a planned economy (privately plan). And libertarian socialist economies are planned economies (socially planned rather than state planned). There is no such thing as a non-planned economy. A non-planned economy would have no prices, laws, standards or regulations. Prices and currency value are the most basic forms of regulation in a capitalist market economy, no matter who sets them. Now if you're trying to say that anything that isn't a "laissez-faire" capitalist market economy is a state-planned economy, that's absolute tripe that I would expect to hear from a Neoconservative. "Decisions about production and pricing and wages, were not left to the market." Yes they were, prices and wages were left to the market and private firms were influenced by representatives to let the wages and prices benefit the government as well. According to your very narrow and selective definition of Capitalism, Capitalism has never existed at any point in human history at any time. "Yes, failing businesses were subsidized. That's not capitalist at all." Then America or any other European society has NEVER been capitalist. Business has ALWAYS been subsidized in every single capitalist economy in existence. A business loan granted by the federal government or a tax layoff is a form of subsidation. The US agriculatural industry has ALWAYS been heavily subsidized by the State. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::You can keep shouting "They were a command economy" until you are blue in the face, and it doesn't make it any more true. And according to your logic, Capitalism has never been realized in any society. ] 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Look. You were arguing that the Fascist economy was not a planned economy but a capitalist economy. Then I show you that it was a planned economy (with sources), and you come back and say that a market economy is a planned economy. Can't you just admit you were wrong? A market economy is not considered to be planned economy. In fact, a planned economy is defined as not being a market economy. Yes, planning goes on in a market economy, but it is by the private entities in response to competition and supply and demand. The state does not plan their production and pricing for them. Nobody refers to a market economy as a "planned economy." You are trying to twist the definition.] 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Isn't the point here that in an Anarcho-capitalism there would be a truly free market (laissez-faire)? ] 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::So far "Anarcho"-capitalism remains controversial because there has never been a "truly" free market according to the very narrow definition of capitalism by "An"-caps. It is questionable if capitalism could exist without a State. And it is also questionable if such a system would be desireable to anyone who isn't a business owner. ] 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Don't bother wasting your time replying to ] as that editor is an obvious sockpuppet clone of a permenantly banned disruptive user (thewolfstar/lingeron/maggie/whiskey rebellion). ] 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Blockader, you might be right. Something about him seems somewhat trollish. ] 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I don't know who you are but you should be more carful before making such accusations. You are mistaken, Blockader. ] 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No. That anarcho-capitalism has not existed is not why it is controversial. It is controversial among anarchists because they support private property and free market. Most anarchists are communists and oppose private property and markets. What do you mean that it is questionable if anarcho-capitalism could exist without a state? Anarcho-capitalism would have no state. What are you trying to say?] 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Nice attempt to try to turn this is into a minority victimhood issue, but the fact that most Anarchists are Communist Anarchists is not why Anarcho-Capitalism is largely not embraced by Anarchists. As I've shown, most modern-day original (ie. Tuckerite, Spoonerite) non-capitalst Individualist Anarchists and Mutualist Anarchists do not support Anarcho-Capitalism either, ones that do accept it as "Anarchism" are still very wary of it. The reason it is rejected by most Anarchists is because it shows little to no concern for most basic Anarchist concepts such as direct democracy, direct democratic federalism, mutual aid, voluntary association, etc. Mutualists and Individualists believe in private "property" (it's problematic to say that because Individualists define "property" by usage rather than ownership like Capitalists do) and most Social Anarchists generally accept them as anarchist comrades (even if their ideas are considered "petit-bourgeoisie"). Anarcho-Capitalists however are radically different than either of these schools and seem to have a rather cozy relationship with Big Business elites. Their thinktanks are funded by corporate money and they even have a hierarchical party (the Libertarian Party) which support parliamentary democracy and is known for defending Big Business and special interest groups (yet will turn around and claim that corporatism is not capitalism when or will rationalize corporatism as "free market"). Many "An"-Caps in academia and the economic field seem to have a friendly relationship with Neoconservatives. "Anarcho-capitalism would have no state." So it claims, that does not make it true just because it calls itself "Anarchist". The Nazis claimed to be "National Socialists" but their policies were very corporate capitalist and they were extremely anti-socialist/anti-communist. Thus far, Anarcho-Capitalists seem to have disdain for direct democracy, have no concern for economic democracy and equality within the workplace, unflinchingly support corporate Neoliberal capitalist mainstream economics, some even support national militaries (some even support international wars waged by first-world nation-states against other countries for economic interest), and they believe in Private Defense Associations which are indistinguishable from a State. It's simply a privately-owned State. Anarchists will accept "An"-Caps as comrades when they start showing a committment to direct democracy, start believing in equality and mutual aid, stop trying to justify capitalist coercion by simply blaming the force and inequality of private capitalist firms on the State, stop believing in private force and stop protecting the interets of monopoly capitalists. ] 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Wow. You still don't know much at all about 19th century individualist anarchism. All individualists, including Benjamin Tucker, are opposed to "direct democracy." That shows me that you have absolutely no conception of individualism. Individualists oppose all coercive authority over the individual including the authority of the majority. And, you're wrong that 19th century individualists define private property different than anarcho-capitalists. They define it exactly the same way - is is that which a person owns - that which has has absolute authority over. I think you are being confused by the land issue. That is where anarcho-capitalists differ from most of the 19th century individualists. They don't consider land to be the product of labor, so they don't consider it private property - meaning they will not enforce titles while a person is not using his land. Everything else is normal private property, including productive property. But, there are other 19th century individualists that disagreed with Tucker on land, including Lysander Spooner. Spooner supported land as private property the same way anarcho-capitalists do. And you say that anarcho-capitalists support private defense associations and private military. So do 19th century individualists! Benajamin Tucker said: "efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." And he says there would still be private military and prisons: "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." I informed you of this before. But you've already forgotten. You don't know anything about individualist anarchism.] 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::There is no logical reason why capitalism could not exist without a state. That's just a ludicrous notion. ] 23:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I've asked that here before when someone claimed it but no one seems to have an answer. If capitalism is defined as it is popularly defined, as The Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines it: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market," then why would that require a State? We'll see if Full of Shuntaya has an answer.] 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::"There is no logical reason why capitalism could not exist without a state. That's just a ludicrous notion." Then why has there never been "Anarcho"-Capitalism at any time in human history? Capitalism cannot exist without the State for a very simple reason: YOU NEED A STATE TO SEIZE AND PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM PROPERTYLESS WORKERS WHO MIGHT REVOLT. If people disagree to work for a capitalist and wish to take production over for themselves, capitalists need a private army to protect "their" property from rebellious workers. There is no reason why anyone would work for you if they can easily just take whatever they want. You need force to acquire private property in the first place to keep it from becoming public (ie. social) property. (When I say property, I'm talking about productive property, not possessions). Also, without a State money has no value (which is one of my questions about how Individualist Anarchism could maintain currency without a State). Money might as well be toy money. ] 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You don't know a state is. If you pay me to protect you from other people that doesn't make me a State. A State taxes -it is not voluntarily paid - and it commits acts of aggression regularly. If all someone is doing is protecting (defending not aggressing) then they are not a state. You are calling private voluntary protection a State. That's wrong. Do you think the 19th century individualists supported a State too? Benjamin Tucker explains: ""efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." (The difference between anarcho-capitalists and Tucker on that is they don't think it would be furnished at the cost of production, because they disagree with the labor theory of value).] 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::I like how when you are backed into a corner, you say "You don't know what 'X' is." According to the Weberian definition of a State, ''has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence'. Hence the state includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police. For theorists of international relations, recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international engagements, is key to the establishment of its sovereignty.'' So paying someone for "protection" (protecting from what?) is indeed a STATE. "If you pay me to protect you from other people" In other words, your "Anarcho"-Capitalist PDAs would basically be like the Mafia demanding payments for "protection" to people who live in neighborhoods owned by private housing businesses. " A State taxes -it is not voluntarily paid" So can a person who lives in "Anarcho"-capitalist territory refuse to pay for "protection"? According to Rothbard, private capitalists would be able to ''"prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defence and judicial services."'' '''''' Sounds like the Mob to me. And sure enough, Robert Nozick, one of the foremost "Anarcho"-Capitalists seems to support slavery, or at least admit that it would not be illegal in "Anarcho"-Capitalism: Ref: http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secF2.html#secf26 J. Philmore even said, ''"I support slavery because I believe in liberty."'' Anarchism indeed. ] 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::This is amazing. You are so misinformed. The reason individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker and Murray Rothbard, became individualist market anarchists is precisely because they oppose a "monopoly on legitimate violence." Tucker and Rothbard wanted competition in protection, so that it would be provided at a lower price (and not funded through taxation). Paying someone to protect you is not at all analagous to the Mafia. In the case of the Mafia it extorts money out of people. It tells them "If you don't pay me for protection then I won't protect AND I'll attack you." The individualist anarchism of Tucker and Rothbard says, "If you pay me for protection then I will protect you." They don't go on to say, "If you don't pay me I will attack you." They will simply leave you to defend yourself from criminals. What makes something a state is that it as an enforced "monopoly on the legitimate use of force" and/or it funds itself through force. The 19th century individualist anarchist ] says to you, "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." That is the position of anarcho-capitalists as well. If you think private defense is a State then you must think 19th century individualists like Tucker and Yarros support a State too. Do you?] 01:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::I'm not misinformed at all, I once leaned towars "Anarcho"-Capitalism myself a few years ago. I have since moved on. "Tucker and Rothbard wanted competition in protection" Why should protection be a marketable service rather something like a community police task force? Private "protection" for hire is little more than mercenaryism and could easily degenerate into a Mafia-like entity. Which is why most Social Anarchists oppose it. "They will simply leave you to defend yourself from criminals." That's called coercion, which is basically just passive force. It's like leaving a person to a pack of wolves unless you become their servant. In other words, they would have a monopoly of violence because they apparently have more violent force at their disposal than other citizens. There is nothing to prevent them from becoming a state or forcing their services on other people. A private protection force would be little more than Feudalism. Back during the feudal days, landlords hired their own "protection services" to supposedly protect the fiefdom, they were called "knights". ] 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Yeah yeah you're not misinformed. Sure. Anyway, the reason you would have to pay someone to protect you is because people don't like to do things for free. Sure, it would be great to get everything free but that is never going to happen. I'm sure not willing to protect you for free. And, no it would not be a monopoly on violence. A monopoly by definition has no competition. Individualist anarchists support competition in protection, in order to keep prices low. You say "There is nothing to prevent them from becoming a state or forcing their services on other people." I can say the same for anarcho-communism. What is to prevent some people from rising up to form a State? There is absolutely nothing to stop it in anarcho-communism. At least in anarcho-capitalism there is a fighting chance because people would be paying for protection against those trying to form a state (to become a monopoly on the use of force and force payment out of people).] 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Guy, you're obviously getting your misinformation from the "Anarchist FAQ." Put that thing down. It was written by someone very unknowledgable about individualist anarchism (not to mention I have caught it in a lie about what a source says). I don't think the writer of that is even aware that the 19th century individualists support privately funded defense.] 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::The Anarchist FAQ was written by several people, not one person. Some of the authors are Classical Individualist (ie. non-capitalist) Anarchists and Mutualists. There is a section on the reason why Social Anarchists reject Individualist Anarchism and a section on why Classical Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists reject Social Anarchism. A few of the authors and editors were former "Anacho"-Capitalists themselves. ] 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::About slavery, I don't know who this "J. Philmore" is, but each individualist anarchist has his own philosophy. I can tell what Rothbard's position is on that. He thinks that self-ownership is inalienable and that therefore if one contracts himself to be a slave it is not enforceable. A person is always self-owned.] 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::I didn't say that all "An"-caps believe in slavery, but the fact that some do and can find ways to justify it using laissez-faire ideology is concerning to say the least. ] 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Uh, yeah, I don't want to hurt your feelings, Full Shunyata, but that bit about the Mafia was really screwy. Like nuts and way off base. ] 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC) And also WTF? I don't believe in slavery. I guess if some nut case wants to sell himself into slavery that would be his business just like if some nut case wants to kill himself, that'd be his business, too. That does not mean that I advocate slavery any more than I advocate people killing themselves. And so surprising that this bit was written by communist-anarchists. Honestly! ] 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::"And so surprising that this bit was written by communist-anarchists. Honestly!" Do you have any proof it was written by Communist Anarchists? ] 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Do you have any proof that I'm a troll? I read that comment you made up above and it was really insulting. Maybe you should get some evidence before you go calling people names and accusing them of stuff like that. Maybe you're a troll. You know, it's really chidish to go calling people names and insulting them because they don't agree with you. You might read Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. ] 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::I've got proof it was written by social anarchists, no individualist anarchists included: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." They say social anarchists are "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on." ] 02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Hm, so it is written by social Anarchists. For Social Anarchists they seemed to be pretty knowledgeable on Mutualist and Individualist Anarchists. So you are right on that point that it was written by Social (though not entirely Communist) Anarchists. However, that doesn't necessarily make the points invalid just as being a non-communist doesn't necessarily invalidate their thoughts on forms of communism. The point still stands that Individualist Anarchists and "Anarcho"-Capitalists are not related by anything other than claiming to be anarchists, a vague solidarity on 'individualism' (although the Classical Individualists were/are communal individualists rather than the rugged individualism of Classical Liberalism that they chided as false individualism), and a dedication to "free markets" (although "An"-cap 'free markets' are radically different than Individualist Anarchist free markets). ] 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::You say "Individualist Anarchists and "Anarcho"-Capitalists are not related by anything other than claiming to be anarchists." That is absurd in itself. Anarcho-capitalists ARE individualist anarchists. What you're doing is first assuming that anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists and then concluding that anarcho-capitalists are not individualists anarchists. It's circular reasoning. If you mean that anarcho-capitalists are not related to the 19th century individualist anarchists, that's very wrong. Both support private property in the product of labor, both support private defense of that property and the body itself, both support free markets. And also, some 19th century individualist anarchists support private property in land, such as Lysander Spooner, just like the anarcho-capitalists. The only real difference between the two is that anarcho-capitalists don't have a labor theory of value so they don't think competition in a free market would cause prices paid to line up with labor exerted. Nor do they think that there is any moral reason that it should. And, even if they had much less in common with 19th century individualist anarchists that still wouldnt make them not individualist anarchists. Max Stirner is well recognized to be an individualist anarchists but he has very little in common with the individualist anarchism of someone like Lysander Spooner, because he doesnt speak of markets at all. So you have no argument that anarcho-capitalist are not individualist anarchists because they are not like 19th century American individualists.] 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::"This is absurd in itself. Anarcho-capitalists ARE individualist anarchists." Opinion as fact doesn't cut it. As you can see, no one's buying this argument because Individualist Anarchists and "Anarcho"-Capitalists have less in common than they do differences that seperate you. "What you're doing is first assuming that anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists and then concluding that anarcho-capitalists are not individualists anarchists." No, I concluded that they are not Individualists after I saw that they have little in common and "Anarcho"-Capitalists reject the majority of the cornerstones of Individualist Anarchism such as equal wages, mutual aid, direct democracy, renumeration, communal individualism, LTV, opposition to rent, opposition to loans, opposition to interest, opposition to hierarchy in the workplace, etc. "Both support private property in the product of labor" Individualist and An-Caps mean something totally different by "private property" which you'd have to be blind or ignorant not to see by now. ''"property, in the sense of individual possession, is liberty"'' '''''' They defined it in terms of occupancy and use where as An-caps do not. "Max Stirner is well recognized" Why do you keep bringing up Max Stirner? Most of the stuff An-caps believe in would be considered "spooks" and "mind fiction" by Stirner. Things such as "natural law" or "natural persons". It's best to not even bring him up if you want to lend credit to your argument that An-caps are Individualist Anarchists. Your reasoning thus far is, "An-caps believe in 'individualism', private property and free markets, thus we are Individualists." I have shown that Individualists differ radically from An-caps on the definition of "free markets" and "private property" as well as "individualism". It seems that you want to stick Anarcho-Capitalism in along with Individualist Anarchism by taking out all those nasty core ideals that Anarcho-Capitalists don't believe in. Your argument is tantamount to saying, "I believe that Jesus existed, I read the Bible, therefore I am a Christian" while disagreeing with almost all of Jesus' teachings and not trying to live like him at all. Your argument is absurd because you try to radically redefine Individualist Anarchism to be convenient for you by picking the term apart into seperate words and limiting what it means to be one by solely ascribing to the two seperate words in the philosophy by claiming to believe in "Individualism" and "Anarchism". It's like a White South African that's an American citizen saying, "I'm from Africa and I'm an American citizen. Thus, I'm Black." COMPLETELY ABSURD. ] 05:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::No, you have it all wrong. All that is required to be an individualist anarchists is to be an individualist (an anti-collectivist) and to oppose the state. Every other position is totally irrelevant. Where are you getting this about "direct democracy"? All individualist anarchists oppose direct democracy. They are against all authority over the individual. That shows me that you have no conception of individualism to think they would support "direct democracy." They support individual decision. They don't support sacrificing their decisions to the majority. Anarcho-capitalists also believe that ""property, in the sense of individual possession, is liberty." There is absolutely no difference on that. And, you're completely wrong that anarcho-capitalists and 19th century individuliasts have a different definition of "free market." A free market just means people are voluntarily trading things. I bring up Max Stirner to show you that all it takes to be an individualist anarchists is to be an anti-collectivist and to oppose the state. (Max Stirner would definitely oppose the individualist anarchism of the 19th century individualists because they believed in natural rights. He would also differ with Rothbard because Stirner thought it was ok to just take property by force ..he had not moral justification for it.). Scholars do not consider any other position relevant to being an individualist anarchist. "Individualist anarchism" simply means "individualist form of anarchism."] 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Just to show you how silly your argument is, I can claim to be an "Individualst Anarchist" as well. I believe in '''individualistic''' communalism, I believe in private property (ie. private ownership of possessions), and I'm an Anarchist. ] 05:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That's incoherent. Individualism and communalism are opposites.] 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Tell that to Individualist Anarchists, they were/are communal individualists (including Max Stirner). Most social scientists realize that individualism and communalism are complimentary and inseperate traits of society, contary to the dogma of Classical Liberal thinkers and Orthodox Marxist thinkers. Individualism simply means self-sovereignty and individual identity while communalism simply means cooperation between individuals and concern for society as a whole. The two are inseperable because no man is an island and no society is a groupthink. I wouldn't be calling any incoherent if I were you, your "individualism" and "private property" is very different than that of Individualist Anarchists. ] 05:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Max Stirner a communalist? HaHa. Now I've heard it all. You really have absolutely no conception of individualism. Stirner said there was no such thing as "society." There was only individuals, and that the individual had no obligations to the community and the community had no obligations to the individual. Do you want to know Stirner's position on private property? "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." That is VERY different from the individulaist anarchism of the American 19th century individualists. They thought property was only legitimate if it was obtained without aggression - it could only be obtained by labor and trade. Stirner thought that it was fine as long as you had the power to take and hold it. Stirner is very unlike the American 19th century individualists yet he's still an individualist anarchist. Again, no individualist has to be like any other individualist anarchist to be an individualist anarchists other than being opposed to collectivism and opposing the state. You say that 19th century individualists had a different conception of private property than anarcho-capitalists. How so?] 05:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Josiah Warren, the first individualist market anarchist in America, said: ""Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate.... it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her own person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate, WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS" (his caps). You think that is communalism? If so, you need help.] 05:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::"Max Stirner a communalist? HaHa." I said a COMMUNAL INDIVIDUALIST. He believed that if everyone was an Egoist and acted in their self-interest, it would rationally lead to making a better human society (or community). ''"intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of individuals"'' '''''' He also argued, ''"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually an Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?. . .Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger . . . is more of a religious society "'' '''''' Stirner regarde private property as a fiction, a "spook" which ''"lives by the grace of law. . . becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law"'' '''''' He argued that to truly be free, we must abandon the concept of property: ''"f man reaches the point of losing respect for property, everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master"'' '''''' "Stirner said there was no such thing as "society."" I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said that, LOL. " Stirner thought that it was fine as long as you had the power to take and hold it." Stirner argued that only a State could protect private property: ''"through the protection of the '''State''', through the State's grace."'' '''''' He also said, ''"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"'' '''''' If Stirner walked into an "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, I think he would get shot by some PDA because they worship the sacredness of property while he thinks of it as a non-existent mind fiction. He was certainly not an opponent of association (ie. communal interaction), ''"s a unique individual you assert yourself alone in association, because the association does not own you, because you are the one who owns it."'' He had no qualms with society as long as everyone considered themselves first before all others even in interactions. There are even Egoistic Communist Anarchists who follow Stirner's philosophy. Striner is only an "Individualist Anarchist" in social philosphy. Economically and politically, he's more like a Communist Egoist because he rejects the entire concept of property and believes everyone should put their own ego first in everything, even voluntary interaction. He doesn't talk about "community" much because he seems to be regard the belief that something is outside of the Self (ie. the Non-Self or Other) as a spook. Not unlike an Advaita Vedantan Hindu. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I'm growing weary of this "debate". You argue from incredualty quite often, you have an air of arrogance and condescenion, and your have a very idealized view of humanity, but little to back up your ideas. I think I'm going to retire from this debate, and I have a feeling that you'll declare yourself the "winner" because you got the last word in. ] 06:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You're forgetting that 19th century individualist anarchists support PDA's too. Any conflict Stirner would have with them he would also have with anarcho-capitalists. Feel free to back away from this debate. But be thankful that you got an education from me. Is "winning" a debate what this is about for you? No wonder you refuse to admit that you're wrong.] 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Stirner does not oppose property. He opposes it only in the moral sense. In the sense of having a right to it. He has no problem with private property. He says as long as you have the power to take and hold something it is your property (not in a moral sense. it just "is). In fact his book The Ego and His Own is also translatable as The Individual and His Property.] 06:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::"Stirner does not oppose property........He has no problem with private property." You can keep dreaming all you want. We'll be here waiting for you whenever you are ready to rejoin reality. ''"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"'' '''''' ''" becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law"'' '''''' ''"through the protection of the '''State''', through the State's grace."'' '''''' ] 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Again, he doesn't look at property as a moral thing. He thinks there is no such thing as property in a moral sense. But, he still believes in property in the sense of a thing that someone takes and holds by force. He said, "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He doesn't "respect" the property of others because he doesn't consider it their property in a moral sense. It's just something they are holding by force, and if he has enough power he can take it as his own property and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing is immoral, according to him.] 08:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::And, no, communalism doesn't simply mean people cooperate with each other. It includes non-individualization of property - sharing arrangements. It is ludicrous that you are calling individualist anachists communalists.] 06:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::"It includes non-individualization of property" Commuanlism and Individualism are social philosophies, not economic arrangements. In economic terms, collectivization means making something the domain of the public while while 'individualism' (or I should say "privatism) means making something the domain of a single person. Communist Anarchists differ from Collectivist Anarchists in that Communist Anarchists reject the entire concept of "property". We do not wish for productive property to be private or collective, we wish for it be OWNED by NO ONE at all. We believe that means of production should be a personal possession to anyone that uses it for their own means so long as their freedom does not extend into another person's freedom. ] 06:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::And, that's why communist anarchism is absurd and authoritarian. It is anti individual. You can wish all you want, but I'll never let you take what belongs to me without paying for it. I own the product of my labor and you have no moral claim on it. So dream on about "anarcho"-communism. I and others like me will never let you control the product of our labor.] 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"It is anti individual." In terms of society, most Communist Anarchists are individualistic communalists. In terms of 'property' we are neither collectivists or individualists because we regard the concept of "ownership" as a spook (like Striner) that has no more inherent reality than Invisible Pink Unicorns. We regard things in terms of usership. "You can wish all you want, but I'll never let you take what belongs to me without paying for it." Just like a Communist Anarchist would never let you take land and deny it to other people unless they work for you. That is why Capitalist Anarchism is authoritarian, it is Landlordism (emphasis on Lord). If a Communist Anarchist walked along a river bank and you said "That's MY river, get away!" they would respond, "Who made you lord of the earth? Since when did nature assign you as the lord and sovereign over what exists naturally?" "I own the product of my labor and you have no moral claim on it." If you believe that, then you would believe it is immoral for a boss to tell his employee to sell what he made. If a person makes a loaf of bread in a factory and the boss tells them to sell it or be fired, they do not respect a person owning their product of labor. If you do not believe that an employee has the right to deny an employer access to their labor products, then you do not truly beleive what you claim to believe. If you say the employer has the right to tell employees what to do with labor products on his property, then you are inconsistent and believe that a person's right to product of labor CAN INDEED be overridden. "I and others like me will never let you control the product of our labor." And I and others would never let you control what we use or take land from us and annoit yourself as lord and sovereign over it. No adult has the right to be another adult's lord or superior. ] 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::" Feel free to back away from this debate. But be thankful that you got an education from me." Ha, I have smashed 95% of your points to smithereenes, made many of your original arguments invalid and you have since not brought them up again, and have reduced you to simply putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same thing over and over again ignoring the facts. You're staggering on your last limbs, only being able to muster some reactionary denials (it's not even scholarly counter-arguments at this point, just flat-out childish "Nuh-uh!" denial) while I'm hovering over you like Muhammad Ali hovering over a battered Joe Frazier (albeit a very annoyed Muhammad Ali). Yet you claim victory. Hilarious. ] 06:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Wow. You seem desperate to think you've won a debate. I'm not claiming "victory" at all, or loss. That's the last thing on my mind. I've been simply looking at this from the point of view as an educator. You came to this knowing absolutely nothing about individualist anarchism and having no conception of individualism at all.] 06:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::"You came to this knowing absolutely nothing about individualist anarchism and having no conception of individualism at all." I came to this debate knowing more about Individualist Anarchism than you (and still knowing more about it). You know nothing about Communist Anarchism outside of what you have read about it through "Anacho"-Capitalist literature and their interpretations of it. ] 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Let's not play games. I know you don't believe what you just said.] 07:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::"I know you don't believe what you just said." Yes, I do. ] 07:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::If the anarcho-communist would not let someone take land as his property then the anarcho-communist is an authoritarian. The fact that you would not allow it means that you think you own the land - that you have a moral claim over it. The fact is, nobody owns the land until they mix their labor with it and make it the product of their labor. Once that happens, it becomes the property of whoever mixed his labor with it. And you cannot claim that that person stole the land from anyone, because no one owned it in the first place. You have a strange idea of "the product of labor." If I own something and someone asks to be paid to transform it into something else, sure it is the product of his labor, but he has sold his labor to me. That is not a uniquely anarcho-capitalist position. That is the position of the 19th century individualist too. As the old individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner said, "if be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors." You cannot own the product of your labor unless you own what you are applying your labor to, or unless no one owns it. You can't take what belongs to someone else, transform it into something, and claims its yours. That's theft.] 06:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"If the anarcho-communist would not let someone take land as his property then the anarcho-communist is an authoritarian." Then YOU are authoritarian for opposing the State taking land. We opposed privately-owned productive property for the same reason we oppose the state: it's authoritarian and it denies the liberty of others by making them subserviant. "The fact that you would not allow it means that you think you own the land - that you have a moral claim over it." Ya don't get it. Not everyone thinks about things in terms of ownership. It's like a Native American trying to talk to a White man. I oppose all kinds of ownership of productive property: private or social. The land and means of production are free, ownership is a mental creation just like Invisible Pink Unicorns. "Once that happens, it becomes the property of whoever mixed his labor with it." That's called a possession, not property. "If I own something and someone asks to be paid to transform it into something else, sure it is the product of his labor, but he has sold his labor to me." Why would he sell it to you in the first place? That is because of the coercive nature of the market. You must either sell things or starve. In an Anarchist Communist society, if you need to transform something in something else and you need other tools, you can simply take tools as long as you give some of the produce in return. Read up on the Gift Economy and the P2P Economy. "You cannot own the product of your labor unless you own what you are applying your labor to." So you are arguing that in an "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, since workers wouldn't own the factories, they have no right to retain what they keep. They are under the rule of owner. That is why "Anarcho"-Capitalism is authoritarian. Logically, you cannot own anything unless you created it. Property transfer rights is a convenient ficton of capitalism. Logically, "ownership" is nothing more than consistent usership. "You can't take what belongs to someone else, transform it into something, and claims its yours. That's theft." If you believed this consistently, you believe that taking productive property as your own is theft because there is nothing that makes it "yours" other than you saying so. ] 07:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No. Anarcho-capitalists oppose the State from taking land because they don't consider land ownership to be legitimate by simply taking it (unlike Max Stirner). Anarcho-capitalists believe that for land to become property, one has to be using it, such as in homesteading, or have transformed it into something useful through labor. Just taking it and guarding it with guns is not legitimate. As Rothbard (an anarcho-capitalist) said, "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." That's a major reason why anarcho-capitalists oppose the State. It is the enemy of legitimate, product of labor, private property. If you prevent a person from turning unowned land into private property by laboring upon it, then you are an authoritarian. You are claiming you own the land simply by decree and guarding it with guns, because you are preventing others from taking it. That makes you no different from a State. And, that's one of the reasons that anarcho-capitalists as well as 19th century individualists anarchists oppose you. Another reason is because you want to abolish people selling their labor to others. That's why Benjamin Tucker called anarcho-communism "Pseudo-anarchism."] 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::"Anarcho-capitalists oppose the State from taking land because they don't consider land ownership to be legitimate by simply taking it." And that's the reason why Communist Anarchists opposed Anarcho-Capitalism. We oppose any kind of land ownership made simply by taking it, whether it be a State or an individual. "Anarcho-capitalists believe that for land to become property, one has to be using it" That's exactly what Communist Anarchists agree qualified for something to be possession (ie. personal property). Since the public uses means of production to survive, that's why we consider means of production to be non-owned since at any time it might need to be used by any person. "you prevent a person from turning unowned land into private property by laboring upon it, then you are an authoritarian." We simply oppose a person preventing others from laboring on the land. Which is why we oppose "private property" because once it becomes such, it denies others the freedom to use it and turn it into "property". If a person labors on land but does not prevent other people from using it, and does not exert control over them, there is no problem. "That makes you no different from a State." I could say the same about private property. Private ownership of productive property is no different than a State because it monopolizes land. "And, that's why anarcho-capitalists as well as 19th century individualists anarchists oppose you." The latter opposes you too and so do their 21st century descendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::So what you're saying is that a person doesn't have the right to the product of his labor. That's why we individualist anarchists oppose you. As the 19th century individualist anarchist Clarence Swartz said, "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." Lysander Spooner had exactly the same philosophy on land as anarcho-capitalists. Benjamin Tucker was different. He thought you had to keep using it to own it. But, for Tucker, everything else that was the product of labor is private property. Anyway, you deny that an individual owns the product of his labor and that's why all individualist anarchists oppose you. 19th century individualist anarchist Henry Appleton said,"All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." Anarcho-capitalists agree.] 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'"'' --Jean-Jacques Rousseau ] 07:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Anarcho-capitalists oppose that. They say a person cannot own legitimately own the land simply by fencing it off. They can only own it under the "homestead principle."] 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Also, by your own reasoning "Anarcho-capitalists believe that for land to become property, one has to be using it" the entire North American continent was property of the Native Americans. Thus, using your reasoning, since the US and capitalism were created by force, the United States of America and capitalism are illegal and theft. ] 07:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No kidding. Any land that was taken from Native Americans (that was not sold) that they were using was stolen. Anarcho-capitalists recognize that. They don't defend the U.S. government. Anarcho-capitalist Karl Hess said, "Much of property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All if it is deeply intertwined in an immoral, coercive state system." But, I doubt they were using the "whole North American continent" as you say. There had to have been some areas that were not in regular use. Any areas they were not using could legitimately be claimed by a homesteader (according to Rothbardian ethics). That wouldnt be theft at all.] 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::First, even land that was "sold" by American Indians or American Indian Nations was nearly ubiquitously dones so under duress. If you have ever studied the history of Indian/White land conflict than you will know that your statement, "But, I doubt they were using the "whole North American continent" as you say. There had to have been some areas that were not in regular use. Any areas they were not using could legitimately be claimed by a homesteader..." is the exact same argument that euros and the Government used to justify their appropriation of Indian land. To the euros, Indian society was generally viewed as lazy, unproductive, and inefficient. Since euro "society" could make "better" (i.e. more productive) use of 10,000 acres of Indian hunting or farming ground, they believed they had the right to take it. the general pattern that emerged was that euro homesteaders would move into Indian held grounds and initiate "illegal" homesteads/settlements under the pretext that noone was using it. then the indians would dislodge them forcefully, as was there right (since they were using though in a different way), giving the various Governments involved the pretense to make war upon the Indians. Becuase the euros could sustain themselves longer during war (they didn't have to hunt/gather/farm for subsistence but could rather draw on larger resources) they usually managed to force the Indian Nations into divisive, devastating, and often fraudulent treaties which ceded large tracts of Indian land. Then the homesteaders were "legit" and new settlers could advance into the next western most Nation's communaly held land. At the center of this conflict was racism and opposing and incongruous ideas of property. Is that what you mean by homesteading? ] 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::''Euro elites'', bitte/s'il vous plait/más é do thoil é/please/por favour/etc. :) The majority of Europeans had no say in what went on, had little to do with it and were still living under oppressive feudal systems. As an Irish person, that was more true for my ancestors than for others. The Brits learnt their tactics in Ireland - "Take a look at the British conquest of Ireland, the earliest of the Western colonial conquests. It was described in the same terms as the conquest of Africa. The Irish were a different race. They weren't human. They weren't like us. We had to crush and destroy them." - . ] 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Was using "euros" as a descriptor to save time, didn't intend to be perjorative but didn't want to say white either. also, my granma was born in County Offaly so i certianly didn't mean to insult eire. actually, though, the majority of the settlers who settled on the western fringe were irish (as well as scots and scots-irish). colonized people being forced to colonize others, thats imperialism for you. ] 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, that's not what I mean by homesteading. By homesteading, I mean a private individual using land that Indians were actually not using. No one can legitimiately claim a new resources they are not using and prevent someone from homesteading on it, according to Rothbardian property ethics. Any areas that the Indians were using regularly for food would have been their legtimate property. To homestead that land is theft. And, any sales under threat of aggression are illegitimate.] 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Well, most lands were being actively used for hunting for food by indians but becuase the colonists viewed hunting largely as a leisure pursuit (due to the fact the it was an aristocratic pastime in Europe) when compared to farming they justified taking the land so it could be better used. this is not OR. Also, nearly all land sold by indians/nations were "under threat of aggression." the exception to this would be the earliest land cessions (like manhattan) which only occured because the colonists and the aboriginals had different notions of property and trade. any cessions not made under threat of aggression were usually made through fraudulent tactics, such as getting a small minority of indian leaders to cede contested land when the greater indigenous inhabitants opposed it and then tauting the legitamcy of the cession. these accepted historical facts, combined with your statements above, lead me to conclude that you believe that all of north and south america, excluding greenland as it was unpopulated when scandinavians arrived there, should be returned to modern american indians. ] 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I don't know all the history of the Indians. All I'm talking about is philosophy. Any property taken by fraud is also illegitimate. Anarcho-capitalists think that property is only legitimate if it was receieved by homesteading on land that was not in regular use by someone, has not be transformed through labor by someone else, and was received in voluntary trade (which means their must be no aggression or fraud). That not only applies to white men coming in but also among the Indians themselves. They could not legitimately prevent another Indian from homesteading on land that other Indians were not using. I don't doubt that some land was stolen and some was not. But if the Indians claimed that they owned all the land on an entire continent, to prevent another Indian or an immigrant from homesteading, then they would be no different from a State presuming it owns everything without using it. As far as returning land to modern American Indians, no. Taking stolen land away from the theives and giving it to the owner is good. But, the owners are long long dead. So, there's nothing you can do. You can't even give it to their children, because they are long dead too. All you have is people related from to people from long ago that had some land stolen from them. And, that's not enough to claim ownership of something. And, you don't even know if any particula person's ancestors' land was actually stolen or voluntarily sold (there's simply no records). And, one Indian might have stolen land from another Indian. The time to rectify all that is long gone, unfortunately. I'm sure some land from one of my ancestors was stolen by someone at sometime. That doesn't mean your backyard should be expropriated and given to me. You or I had nothing to do with it.] 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::While we were on the subject of authoritarianism, let's see how "non-authoritarian" capitalism (any kind) has been towards Social Anarchism. This was a reaction from a private capitalist company during the "laissez-faire" Era of America: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::''General Electric proposed the "Pilot Program" as a means of overcoming the problems they faced with introducing Numeric Control (N/C) machinery into its plant at Lynn River Works, Massachusetts. Faced with rising tensions on the shop floor, bottle-necks in production and low-quality products, GE management tried a scheme of "job enrichment" based on workers' control of production in one area of the plant. By June 1970 the workers' involved were "on their own" (as one manager put it) and "n terms of group job enlargement this was when the Pilot Project really began, with immediate results in increased output and machine utilisation, and a reduction on manufacturing losses. As one union official remarked two years later, 'The fact that we broke down a traditional policy of GE was in itself satisfying, especially when we could throw success up to them to boot.'" |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The project, after some initial scepticism, proved to be a great success with the workers involved. Indeed, other workers in the factory desired to be included and the union soon tried to get it spread throughout the plant and into other GE locations. The success of the scheme was that it was based on workers' managing their own affairs rather than being told what to do by their bosses -- "We are human beings," said one worker, "and want to be treated as such." To be fully human means to be free to govern oneself in all aspects of life, including production. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::However, just after a year of the workers being given control over their working lives, management stopped the project. Why? "In the eyes of some management supporters of the 'experiment,' the Pilot Program was terminated because management as a whole refused to give up any of its traditional authority . . . he Pilot Program foundered on the basic contradiction of capitalist production: Who's running the shop?" |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Noble goes on to argue that to GE's top management, "the union's desire to extend the program appeared as a step toward greater workers control over production and, as such, a threat to the traditional authority rooted in private ownership of the means of production. Thus the decision to terminate represented a defence not only of the prerogatives of production supervisors and plant managers but also of the power vested in property ownership." Noble notes that this result was not an isolated case and that the "demise of the GE Pilot Program followed the typical pattern for such 'job enrichment experiments'" Even though "everal dozen well-documented experiments show that productivity increases and social problems decrease when workers participate in the work decisions affecting their lives" such schemes are ended by bosses seeking to preserve their own power, the power that flows from private property. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As one worker in the GE Pilot Program stated, "e just want to be left alone." They were not -- capitalist social relations prohibit such a possibility (as Noble correctly notes, "the 'way of life' for the management meant controlling the lives of others" ). In spite of improved productivity, projects in workers' control are scrapped because they undermined both the power of the capitalists -- and by undermining their power, you potentially undermine their profits too ("If we're all one, for manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably, just like a co-op business." ).'' Ref: http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secB4.html#secb45 |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Ludlow_Massacre |
|
|
|
|
|
:::And the famed Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, subscribed heavily to the Chicago School of Economics and Milton Friedman: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::''By mid 1975, Pinochet set about making economic reforms variously called "neoliberal" or sometimes "free market" by its supporters. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of proprietors." To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman. Pinochet launched an era of deregulation of business and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on income and profits. Chile also began an exporting strategy of non-copper products. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the country's sustained economic growth since the late 1980s. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Pinochet's neoliberal economic policies' benefits have had its drawbacks. In 1973, unemployment was only 4.3%. Following ten years of junta rule in 1983, unemployment skyrocketed to 22%. Real wages declined by more than 40%. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. In 1990, in the last year of Pinochet's rule, poverty doubled to 40%. Between 1982 and 1983, the GDP dropped 19%. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government's boast that the new economy would solve homelessness. Meanwhile, the wealthy were raking it in. In 1970, the richest one-fifth of the population controlled 45% of the wealth compared to 7.6% for the poorest one-fifth. In 1989, the richest one-fifth controlled 55% of the wealth while the poorest one-fifth controlled only 4.4%.'' Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Augusto_Pinochet#Economic_policy |
|
|
|
|
|
:::He also made it a specific policy to silence and kill Marxists, socialits and Anarchists. ] 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The economic reforms were excellent for Chile. People making your arguments overlook the fact that there was a Latin American recession. Chile was not the only economy that went into recession. And, they overlook the fact that Chile was the first of the Latin American countries to pull out of that recession - thanks to the liberated market. So everything you're saying about the effects of the recession on Chile is irrelevant. And, thanks to that liberalization, today Chilean enjoy the highest standard of living over other Latin American countries.] 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"The economic reforms were excellent for Chile. People making your arguments overlook the fact that there was a Latin American recession." Wrong. I could just as easily point out the that Soviet economy was highest during Stalin's time and the early part of Khrushchev's reign and that the economy declined because of a general global recession in the 70's, but who cares? The fact is that the reforms were bad and are still bad today. The "Chilean Miracle" is a myth: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Ref: http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1994/08/mm0894_12.html |
|
|
:::::Ref: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Neoliberal_Success_Chile.html |
|
|
:::::Ref: http://www.cep.cl/Cenda/Cen_Documentos/Pub_MR/Ensayos/UCLA_paper.html |
|
|
:::::Ref: http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/education170102.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Why are you defending a dictator anyway? ] 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm not defending a dictator. Milton Friedman's position was the economic liberalization leads to political freedom. And, that's exactly what happened. The fascist, Pinochet, was taken out.] 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::His economic policies were authoritarian (something you claim to be against) and took away all sorts of economic freedoms of workers, took away economic democracy and caused horrible results that last until this day: http://www.foei.org/trade/activistguide/chile.htm (and I quoted other soures above which dispell the Neoliberal myths about Chile). Very telling that the ends justify the means to you. ] |
|
|
::::::Minimum wage is definitely not "economic freedom." Economic freedom is the lack of a minimum wage. Economic freedom is the freedom to for someone to purchase labor from another person at whatever rate they mutually agree upon, instead of the state forcing a certain wage.] 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::About "inequality." That's what happens when people are free. There is wealth inequality, because we are all individuals and have different talents, motivations, and creativity. And, there's nothing wrong with that. Equal wealth distribution can only be achieved by authoritarianism. As Benjamin Tucker said, "If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living."] 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"About "inequality." That's what happens when people are free." You almost made me swear with that comment. That's completely ahistorical and unrealistic. The freest forms of society, tribal societies, most certainly do not have people that are "better than others". Difference in talent does not = inequality. For instance, you could be better at me than Art, but I mmight be better at you than Math. That doesn't make us inequal. "Equal wealth distribution can only be achieved by authoritarianism." Inequality can only be achieved by authoritarianism. People did not become "inequal" in society until the rise of class society and dominatory hierarchy. You sir, are definitely no Anarchist. Anarchists most certainly do not support inequality. Inequality allows for force and coercion. ] 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I am not your equal. No person is equal to any other person. Therefore incomes will all differ in liberty. If produce things of greater value to society than you produce, then I'm going to be richer than you. Inequality is good.] 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"Therefore incomes will all differ in liberty." So you admitted that your philosophy is about freedom for those who can acquire it. Right by might and freedom for the powerful. Typical right-wing authoritarianism. "If produce things of greater value to society than you produce, then I'm going to be richer than you." Capitalists do not produce anything, their hired labor does. Basically a capitalist is like a parasite who sucks wealth off the wealth produced by his/her host(s) (the hired labor). Capitalists don't deserve anything unless they work and produce it like everyone else. "Inequality is good." Slavery must be the ultimate good for you then. And you wonder why no one accepts "An"-caps as Anarchists other than themselves. Pathetic. ] 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, I am saying that in a free market, people will have different incomes and wealth levels. Individualist anarchists do not become envious when others are wealthier than them and want to tear everyone down into a "communal ant heap" as anarcho-communists do. "Capitalists don't deserve anything unless they work and produce"? I agree. I never met a capitalist who didn't work. I understand that anarcho-communist don't accept anarcho-capitalists as anarchists. But it's mutual. I don't accept anarcho-communists as anarchists. I think they authoritarians in disguise. They have no interest in liberty. They only have an interest in tearing down others to their level of misery.] 01:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"No, I am saying that in a free market, people will have different incomes and wealth levels. Individualist anarchists do not become envious when others are wealthier.." This isn't about envy, this is about power. If someone is wealthier than another person, they have MORE POWER in a market system. In a system where people "vote with their dollars" a person with $1,000,000 can rule over a person with $10,000. Hierarchy of wealth would lead to monopoly capital and the recreation of a State. "I never met a capitalist who didn't work." His work is not worth any more than anyone else's in the company. His income comes from the labor of his employees, thus he is a parasite because he receives money for labor he did not do and labor products he did not create. Whether or not he created the workplace (99%+ of business owners did not physically build their business, other people did) makes no difference because he doesn't produce any wealth made from the property. He just gives orders and makes decisions that anyone else could logically do with training. ] 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, it's about envy. Communism is about envy, pure and simple. If someone is wealthier than another person, he has no more power than anyone else in an individualist anarchist society. He is subject to the same rules as everyone else, which is simply, do not engage in aggressive coercion or fraud aggress against another person. If he violates those rules, he goes to jail, like every other criminal. Sure, part of an employers income comes for the labor of his employees. So what? He purchased that labor. That's what business is about. You buy things and sell things.] 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Haha, that's Goodthink if I ever heard it. Slavery is Freedom, Freedom is Slavery. Wage floors are slavery while unregulated wages (allowing for sweatshop wages) are free. LOL Yes, I'm sure that all the interactions in Chile were mutual and the workers had full control of whether or not to sell their labor. According to Rothbardian ethics, it is impossible to sell yourself as a slave as that would violate freedom; so as long as you get wages it's all good. Never mind that the wages can be as low as 1 cent a day which is next to slavery. "Economic freedom is the freedom to for someone to purchase labor from another person at whatever rate they mutually agree upon" Freedom without Equality is Tyranny and Equality without Freedom is Slavery. An agree is not mutual if one person has a major advantage over the other and the other person is pressed by other factors to accept the deal (that's called coercion). The Ministry of Love appreciates your flawed reasoning. "As Benjamin Tucker said" Stop quoting Tucker because Tucker would certainly not support the kind of stuff you're pushing. Unlike you, Tucker believed that liberty is impossible without equality. Anacho-Capitalism is free alright, except some are more free than others. ] 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, sorry. You still don't understand individualist anarchism. The only equality individualists are interested in is equality under the law. Here's a quote from another old individualist, Laurance Labadie, "In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to services rendered. Free competition will see to that." The liberalization of the Chilean economy wasn't perfect, because it wasn't anarcho-capitalism. But it was a step in the right direction by reducing the amount of state control over people. And, that's why Chileans have such a high standard of living today, compared to other Latin American countries.] 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"No, sorry. You still don't understand individualist anarchism." No sorry, you don't understand Anarchism, period. First of all, Laurance Labadie's quote differs from the thoughts of Spooner and Tucker. Second of all, this whole debate shows that you have nothing in common with Anarchism. You claim to be against the State, but have no problem with PDA "protection" mobs, you have no concern for equality (it's common sense that force comes inequality), you have no concern for direct democracy, no concern for mutual aid or voluntary association, and you'll support any old Fascist as long as they get your Neoliberal economic agendas done. Nevermind that Chile's economic reforms were completely authoritarian. YOU SIR ARE NO ANARCHIST. And then you wonder why no Anarchist on this board will accept "Anacho"-Capitalists except for other "Anarcho"-Capitalists. Like I said, "An"-Capitalism is privateer fascism. ] 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Benjamin Tucker and other 19th century individuialist supports PDA too, so why don't you attack Tucker for it? Labadie does not differ from Tucker on wealth inequality. I gave you a direct quote from Tucker saying that wealth inequality is natural in liberty. And, no individualist anarchist supports "direct democracy." The are against democracy in all its forms. You need to realize that individualist anarchism is nothing like "anarcho"-communism.] 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::"Benjamin Tucker and other 19th century individuialist supports PDA too, so why don't you attack Tucker for it?" Tucker's support of PDAs are one of the main reasons I'm not an Tuckerite. Anyway, we're talking about equality. "I gave you a direct quote from Tucker saying that wealth inequality is natural in liberty." It was from Labadie, not Tucker. "They are against democracy in all its forms." Then what type of governance do they support? I need to see a quote to back this statement up, BTW. ] 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No, I gave you a quote from Tucker as well. I'll repeat it. "If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living." The governance that they support is individual decision. The individual decides for himself what he does with his person and property. He does not sacrifice himself to democratic rule.] 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Any citations for the quote? It seems (at least at face value) to contradict some of his other sayings. ] 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Source is his writing called "Economic Rent." ] 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::;:::::On second thought, it doesn't even matter if he said it or not. Logically, in a market system, two people who are inequal in wealth are not equal in liberty since in a market system wealth means liberty. ] 02:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If everyone starts out with equal wealth in a free market, it will definitely not stay that way. People create wealth (inventions and innovations) and trade it with others. They more wealth they create they more wealthy they become when they sell it to others. Those who are not so creative or energetic don't become as wealthy.] 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I wish you would stop making Tucker out to be something that he is not. He certainly did not support inequality, he supported equal liberty for all: ''"the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty."'' '''''' and was indeed in favor of direct democracy: ''"for self-government on the part of the people, the logical outcome of which is ultimate revolt against those usurping political conspiracies and so a potent sign of emancipation."'' He wanted ''"an intelligent and '''self-governing''' socialism"'' '''''' Stop filtering Tucker through Rothbard and Nozick. ] 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::He supports equal liberty, yes, just like anarcho-capitalists. Now you're getting it. That means no person should aggress against another, so that everyone has equal liberty (standard libertarianism). But he does not support equal wealth distribution. He's not a communist. He supports self-government, yes. That means the individual governs himself. He doesn't aggress against anyone else. He does not support democracy. It's appalling that you would even suggest that of an individualist anarchist. Democracy is majority governing the minority. All individualists oppose that.] 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"He supports equal liberty, yes, just like anarcho-capitalists. Now you're getting it." A propertyless worker or consumer does not have the same amount of liberty as a business owner. In a market system, wealth is power and power secures and ensures liberty. "He's not a communist." NO DUH. "He supports self-government, yes. That means the individual governs himself." Communist Anachists believe the exact same thing. It's known as "direct democracy". In the quote he also supported things that affect more than the individual being decided by everyone involved with equal decision power. His aim was to ''"place the means of production within the reach of all."'' ] 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No, a business owner in an individualist anarchist system has the same liberty as anyone else. He is subject to the same rules, which is it is illegal to commit aggressive coercion or fraud against another person. Individualists do not support "direct democracy." They support self-rule. Anarcho-capitalists also want to "place the means of production within the reach of all." They fully support private ownership of the means of production, just like the 19th century individualists.] 02:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Duh, that's what I've been saying. In an Individualist system the employer has no more power than an employee. He/she has no authority over other people in society or the workplace. Anarcho-capitalist, on the other hand, have no qualms with workplace hierarchy. ] 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::So, does Benjamin Tucker: "" carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty or Authority] 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Voltarine de Cleyre, who was once an individualist anarchist, described the individualist anarchism of Tucker and the others like this: "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State."] 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Anarcho-capitalism, we have always agreed that Individualist Anarchism is a market system. I don't know why you are trying to convince me that it is a market system because that is a point I have never denied. What I am saying is that it does not support hierarchy because Tucker explicitly explained that employers should not have power over employees. Unlike a capitalist or an "anarcho"-capitalist system, Individualist Anarchism does not have bosses or managers, in their system an employer is not a hierarchical boss who gives orders to or makes decisions for the employees. The employees and employers engage in decision-making equally and everyone is a wage laborer. However, after looking back, wages in the system are equal unless one person works harder than another or is able to sell more. Wages are based on effort and renumeration rather than proprieter profit. Unlike "Anarcho-Capitalists", they do not support rent, leasing, loaning and interest. Also, unlike "Anarcho-Capitalists", they oppose hierarchy and inequality. The fact that self-described "Anarcho"-Capitalists don't support equality, don't have an objection to workplace or market hierarchy, and don't oppose interest or rents makes their status as "Anarchists" very questionable (and to many Anarchists, impossible). All other Anarchists oppose inequality because inequalty allows for force, domination, hierarchy and inevitably the re-creation of a State. Now either one of two things is true: "Anarcho"-Capitalists are indeed Anarchists and Anarchists who reject them (the majority, even non-communist ones) don't truly understand what "Anarchism" means and are ignorant of their own philosophy; or "Anarcho"-Capitalists are not Anarchists but are simply 'anti-State' (allegedly) modern-day Classical Liberals (ie. Libertarians). ] 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::What you are saying is irrelevant because there is no such requirement to be opposed to interest, or to rent, or to profit, or voluntary "hierarcy" to be an anarchist. Even Proudhon said "I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to... forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all." (Solution of the Social Problem, 1848-49) All you are saying is you have to be like other self-proclaimed anarchists to be an anarchist, and nothing could be further from the truth. All that is required to be an anarchist is that you allow others to do what they wish as long as they don't aggress against others. There is a requirment to respect individual liberty. And, that's why anarcho-communism is not anarchism. That's why Benjamin Tucker called anarcho-communism "Pseudo-anarchism," |
|
|
because that's exactly what it is.] 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Anarcho-capitalism, I am not going to play along with your convenient re-defining of Anarchism. Anarchism is indeed opposed to hierarchy, even so-called "voluntary" hiearchy (as if such a thing is possible or has ever happened in human history), rent, profit, etc. The mere fact that you have no oppositition to hierarchy discounts you as an Anarchist. Anarchism = An - No Archonos - Rulers. If you support hierarchy, even "voluntary" hierarchy, you are automatically not an Anarchist just as you are not a Capitalist if you don't support private property. If I were you, I'd stop bringing up Proudhon and Tucker because they are just as opposed to your philosophy (possibly more so) as they are to my philosophy. I suggest you read on the differences between Anarchism (including Individualist Anarchism) and so-called "Anarcho-Capitalism" Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#_note-12 |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"All that is required to be an anarchist is that you allow others to do what they wish as long as they don't aggress against others." That is BS and you know it. To be an Anarchist is to be opposed to the State, opposed to social hierarchy and opposed to hierarchical and authoritarian economic systems. "There is a requirment to respect individual liberty. And, that's why anarcho-communism is not anarchism." You continue to show your ignorance of Communist Anarchism. If you knew anything about it outside of Rothbardian rhetoric and propaganda, you would know that Communist Anarchists are opposed to private ownership of productive property because we believe it is an affront to individual liberty (some of us are even Egoists). We believe that being under someone else's control suppressed individuality and that private property robs people of individuality because it limits their access to productive means and creates a hierarchy based on amount of property ownership. We also believe private property ultimately leads to the creation of State. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anarchist_communism All Anarchists (including Individualists like Tucker) also care about social liberty as well as individual liberty as I have shown from numerous quotes. Individual liberty means nothing if it only extends in practice for a few while subjecting other people in society to a powerful few. Anarchism does not adhere to Classical Liberal "rugged" individualism. Stop bastardizing Anarchism to fit your own convenience. Like I said, the existence of "Anarcho"-Capitalism can mean only one of two things: All non-Capitalist Anarchists (Individualist and Social alike) have been wrong about what Anarchism means all along and "An"-Caps know better; or "Anarcho"-Capitalist are not Anarchists. ] 05:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::By the way, he was only a "fascist" socially. In terms of economics, he was a Neoliberal libertarian and used the State basically as one big PDA. ] 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==This debate== |
|
|
is getting way off-topic and entirely off-the-wall. If you are going to compare anarcho-capitalism to fascist dicators like Pinochet then I guess we can start comparing communist-anarchism to socialist dictators like Stalin. My point is that this whole thing is getting really carried away and into the realm of the irrational and the ludicrous. And Full Shunyata, will you please stop repeating what everyone says? This page is long enough. ] 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Doctors, stop lying. All I said about Pinochet was that he implemented Neoliberal libertarian economic policies and pointed out that his economic system was still very authoritarian (despite Libertarian claims that their system would not be authoritarian) and that his policies also a lot of economic decline in spite of enriching the upper-middle class in Chile. I said he was only a Fascist socially, economically and poliitcally he was a Neoliberal libertarian. He basically used the Chilean State as one large PDA for private enterprises to crush labor rebellions and anti-Neoliberal groups. You shouldn't try to tell me off if you don't even know what was said. ] 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You know, honestly Shunyata, stop calling me names. I'm not a liar. I'll admit that I don't know what the hell you're talking about or why. There's no damned relevance to it. Period. I might as well go off on a tangent about Joseph Stalin and all the false promises he made in the name of socialism before he killed 600,000,000 people. ] 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Calling you a liar (actually, I said "stop lying" not "you liar") is not name-calling, it's accusing you of a certain behavior, not calling you out of your name. It is very apparent you don't know what's going on and should just stay out of it since you don't. BTW, Stalin didn't kill 600 or 60 million people. Stalin killed about 7-9 million people as political prisoners. About 15 million other people died in Russia due to famine, bureaucratic mismanagement and the brutality of Industrialization itself. However, if you look back in history, Capitalist governments of the 17th and 18th century killed people up to the millions as well. Many millions of people died in England due to industrialization as well. I don't see what Stalin has to do with me anyway. If you keep comparing me, as a Communist Anarchist to Soviet Socialist dictators, I could start comparing you to Fascist Capitalist dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini. Put down "The Black Book of Communism" and pick up a real history book. You're a sockpuppet and you're only here to cause trouble. ] 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::How do you know he's a sockpuppet? Maybe you're a sockpuppet. Can you prove that he's a sockpuppet or that you are not a sockpuppet? ] 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh, I can prove ] (she, not he) is a sockpuppet. ] aren't even interested in this user any more, they recommend me to block her on sight and not bother them with something so obvious. The only reson I haven't blocked her (yet) is that so many people are being unconstructive on this poor excuse for a talkpage anyway. But I have to say I wonder about the motives of people who jump in to say she's ''not''. Do you actually know anything about it? ] | ] 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::Stalin killed 600 million people? missed that while getting a history degree somehow. Also, why haven't you been blocked yet thewolfstar? Do you have nothing better to do than mess around on wikipedia despite the fact that you're permanently banned?] 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Oh, exuse me. I meant to say 60 million. (After the first million it starts losing relevance, any how.) You kind of missed my point. And, Blockader, please stop these lame accusations. If you can't provide any evidence of this, then just kindly cut it out. ] 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Zaxlebaxism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Libertatia provided some great links: Roderick Long's is one of the best essays on ''anarchism without adjectives'' you'll ever see, and addresses the semantic issues people quibble about so much here. Brad Spangler's blog piece is a good example of such semantics - anarcho-capitalism could just as easily be called "stigmergic socialism" if you accept certain definitions. I recommend that those who participated or read any of the above discussion read the Long and Spangler essays. |
|
|
|
|
|
I concur that most of the discussion above is semantic nonsense; people are arguing over the "true" (i.e. their preferred) definitions, which doesn't address at all the real ideas and issues. That said, this ''is'' supposed to be an encyclopedia, which forces us to 1) give definite meanings to terms used, and 2) make such terms consistent with other Wiki articles. Thus, I cannot agree with those who want to duck the definitional questions by deferring to self-labelling or antiquated usages. That would be misleading and unfair to Misplaced Pages readers, most of whom will ''not'' have the knowledge or historical background to perceive and mentally qualify these usages. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, to have a good article, it seems to me that it will be necessary for many people to "hold their noses" and stipulate definitions that they personally consider non-optimal or even outright mistaken. This is not to say that self-labelling should be totally avoided, but that they should be accompanied by the self-labeller's definition of the hot-button term. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have my doubts that Misplaced Pages is capable of achieving a consensus on stipulating definitions for hot-button terms in an article like this. It may well be that this is a systemic defect of Wiki. The history of this article would seem to indicate that this is the case. ] 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Do we have to "give definite meanings" to terms that have shifted meanings over the course of their usage? Wouldn't it be better to explain the varied meanings of terms - so (as we currently do, I think), we can point out that the American Individualists considered themselves socialists, and also point out that this does ''not'' mean they supported nationalization. We can point out that, historically, anarchists have taken "capitalism" to mean something that requires authoritarian support, and also point out that some anarchists now use "capitalism" in a different way, and so feel that capitalism and anarchism are compatible. |
|
|
: First, stipulating definitions will lead to anachronism; to say, for example, that Tucker was not a socialist, because he is not a socialist in the modern sense, elides the fact that ''he'' saw similarities between his views and those of his contemprorary, non-anarchist, socialists. |
|
|
: Second, stipulating definitions means we have to make a decision on, for example, whether anarcho-capitalists ''mean'' something different from anti-capitalist anarchists by "capitalism," or whether they simply disagree about the properties of capitalism. I suspect this is impossible to do. I think the only way we can be accurate and informative is to explain the historical diversity in meaning of terms we use. ] 02:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are right - we don't really have to give definite meanings if we avoid using the fuzzy terms. As you indicate and I failed to realize, the section on individualist anarchism doesn't use "socialism" or "socialist" at all! Instead, we simply say what they believed, and let the reader decide on the labeling. That is a darn good way to handle it. Maybe I should just read the article and avoid the discussion. So long as we continue to e.g. refrain from calling Benjamin Tucker a socialist or even quoting his self-labeling use of the term, I see no problems of misleading readers. |
|
|
|
|
|
::We also in the current article don't define "capitalism." This seems to work, because as far as I can see, there is little or no ambiguity. When used in the anarcho-syndicalist section, ''any'' reasonable definition makes sense. In the anarcho-capitalist section, we manage to list features rather than define, as we did for "socialism" in the individualist anarchist section. |
|
|
|
|
|
::If we ever do define these terms in the article, I would suggest using the "intersection" of all definitions, i.e. that which is common to all. Then we avoid the probem you mention of deciding which properties are essential and which are results or consequences. Of course, getting consensus on this still may be a problem. I notice that the intersection of all definitions of anarchism - extreme anti-statism - was argued extensively. And what happens if there is no commonality? For some, "capitalism" means an economic system of wage labor, for others it means a system that allows private ownership of the means of production. There is no overlap there. |
|
|
|
|
|
::But for the current article, my point about definition is irrelevant. My bad - I was reading the endless discussion above instead of the article. So ... never mind. ] 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm only aware of Benjamin Tucker calling himself a "anarchistic socialist" anyway. I'm pretty sure most of the others did not, if any of other others.] 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's probably because they weren't socialists. ] 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I don't think Warren or Spooner ever called themselves socialist. And by modern standards they weren't, since they supported private ownership of the means of production. Warren did use "cost is the limit of price" economics, but Spooner did not. Spooner supported the right of interest, land ownership, and employment, so he was basically an anarcho-capitalist. Some web pages are misleading on this, quoting Spooner out of context. Virtually all anarcho-capitalists prefer individual entrepreneurship to employment - this preferrence does not make someone anti-capitalist nor socialist. Nor does someone claiming that "labor shall be put in possession of its own" (Tucker's notion of socialism) make one a socialist - anarcho-capitalists would agree. The issue is not whether one has a right to the fruits of their labor, but whether one may sell this "fruit" in advance. ] 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Permutations of "anarchistic socialism" were common in ''Liberty'' and some of the related journals. Curiously, while the dictionaries have never been very good at acknowledging the libertarian forms of socialism, "anarchistic socialism" is also pretty widely used in the general and secondary literature on politics in the early 20th century, even after the decline of the individualist anarchist movement. More reason to believe that we are not dealing with "modern" and "outdated" definitions, but with common and less common definitions which have existed in competition for a long time. ] 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Actually, if you look at the definitions of anarcho-capitalism, it is simply a philosophy that supports a free market including market provided defense. The anarcho-capitalism article gives the typical definition: "Anarcho-capitalism (also known by other names, such as free market anarchism) is an individualist political philosophy that advocates the provision of all goods and services—including systems of justice, law enforcement, and national defence—by competitors in a free market." So, if you go by the standard definition of anarcho-capitalism then all the individualist market anarchists, including Tucker and Spooner, were anarcho-capitalists. I'm not saying that they were, but by definition they were.] 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proudhon== |
|
|
Is it necessary to have an entire section in this article devoted to Proudhon? Is he really that important? It's redundant because there's a section about mutualism anyway. ] 01:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:While discussing the origins of anarchism, it is impossible not to discuss Proudhon, the first self-proclaimed anarchist. It's not redundant to discuss Proudhon and Mutualism in separate sections, either, because one is a pioneering intellectual and the other is a significant school of thought within anarchism. One section discusses the origins of anarchism whereas the other discusses theories that have contemporary followings. -- ] 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM== |
|
|
This is from http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca14 |
|
|
|
|
|
'''LIBERTARIAN''': one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''SOCIALISM''': a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields: |
|
|
|
|
|
'''LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM''': a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have political power you have authoritarianism. You don't have freedom of action and thought. You do not have anarchism. That's why libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. It's ironic that the anarcho-communists or libertarian socialists say that anarcho-capitalism is authoritarian when it is the other way around. ] 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure, but I think they made that definition of socialism up, unless it's an old American Heritage Dictionary. I've caught the writers of that FAQ lying before, so I don't trust them. American Heritage Dictionary that is available online defines socialism as: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." If the means of production arent owned collectively, then it's not socialism. It's not defined as the "producers" owning the means of production, because that would include capitalism too.] 01:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's a definition that is cited quite a number of other places, and appears to be from the 1969 edition of the ''American Heritage Dictionary''. And, for the record, I doubt very much you've caught any of the FAQ's authors "lying," whatever errors of fact and interpretation might have slipped into such a large, ambitious project. ] 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I sure did catch the author(s) lying. I saw that it presented a source which they claimed to be saying that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. It says this about Barbara Goodwin's book "Using Political Ideas": "Barbara Goodwin agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism." Well, that is not what the books says. It says they are right-wing libertarians but it does not say they are not anarchists. To the contrary, it explicitly says they are anarchists. She is simply distinguishing them from what she calls "left libertarian" forms of anarchism. I quote Goodwin in "Using Political Ideas": "Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs....Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians...Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines...This preference was evident in the student uprisings of 1968 in France and the USA, which were largely anarchist in spirit and with which many of the libertarian left associate themselves." (Barbara Goodwin, "Using Political Ideas", fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137-138)] 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The material you cite demonstrates how inconsistent Goodwin's account is. Having read the whole section at issue, I'm amazed anyone bothers to cite it. It's not a ''lie'' to include a direct and accurate quote, and it's silly to say that it is. Both you and the FAQ authors use Goodwin selectively, but since she can't make up her mind, there's not much choice, other than the logical one of not using such a bad source. ] 17:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::What do you mean she can't make up her mind? Saying that someone is a libertarian is not saying they're not an anarchist. "Libertarianism" is a synonym for anarchism in anarchist literature. All she is saying is that they are right anarchists and the others are left anarchists. The authors of the FAQ are clearly liars. Don't tell me I'm using her selectively...I put the whole quote there. They're the ones that took a small piece out and then lied about what she was saying.] 17:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Whatever, man. Libertarianism and anarchism are synonyms in ''some'' anarchist literature ''sometimes''. It appears to me that you are missing the nuances and careless confusions in Goodwin. I'm not going to call you a "liar" though. ] 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::She is obviously using "libertarian" as a synonym for anarchism, as it is used in most discussions about anarchism. How am I "missing the nuances and careless confusions in Goodwin"? She explictly says they are anarchists then goes on to say in what category. They are in the "right libertarian" category. Then she goes to say that "Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines" and says that these are the "libertarian left." The FAQ writer(s) knew that said "there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which..." but lied and said that she said they were not anarchists. Whowever is wriing the FAQ is so desperate to fool people into thinking that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism that they will got to any length, including lying.] 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The entry that starts this heading claims that "political power" necessarily means authority and lack of "freedom of action and thought." That obviously not what the ''FAQ'' authors believe. Is it a "lie" to attempt to rebut them with a definition that is obviously ideosynchratic? ] 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In any case the Anarchist FAQ ia a biased pile of dogmatic crap. I wouldn't trust it as far as I could spit. ] ] 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Man, thewolfstar. you have taken sockpuppetry to new heights. posing as two different editors simultaneously and having conversations with yourself. congrats, ] 03:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Actually, political power is authority. I don't understand how anyone can claim that it isn't. Power is coercive and would be like having another state running the show. You can't have real freedom where you have any kind of power over free will and choice. It wouldn't be my idea of freedom. ] ] 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Power is coercive"? This is the sort of position that is sometimes attributed, incorrectly, to the anarchists of the 19th century. But why would you limit "power" to ''power over''? Why not think of non-coercive power as that which enables us to take advantage of our freedoms? The reductionist definition of "power" is certainly not "obvious," not the usage common to the anarchist tradition, or the only one you're likely to find in a dictionary. You're free to argue about "power" defined in this way, but in doing so you'll simply fail to engage with those who don't share your very reductionist understanding of the concept. One very simple and consistent construction of ''anarchist political power'' is as ''the capacity for, and freedom of, self-government''. Maybe you prefer to use a different vocabulary, but a rebuttal must meet the original statement on its own terms. Since the ''FAQ'' actually contains some nicely worked out sections on issues like "authority," the piece at the top of this section comes off as particularly slipshod and beside the point. ] 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::i generally refrain from arguing with sockpuppepets but you are so ridiculous that i can't help it, thewolfstar. there are many types of political power, most are coercive and authoritarian and some are not. a community organized around the ideas of any social anarchism would be an example of an intance where the producers exercised political power in a non-authoritarian manner so long as the rules of free association are observed. that is the political system upheld by social anarchists. it is not oppresive or authoritarian becuase if you disagree there is nothing stopping you from going and living by yourself or other like minded people. Mr. ancap, i agree with libertatia that Goodwin's article is a mess and i seriously doubt that the writers of the FAQ deliberately misrepresented her ideas. you can read her statements as meaning that the true place of ancap, though it calls itself anarchist, belongs not within anarchism but within right-wing libertarianism, which is something very different. i don't think that is necesarily the correct way to read her statements but i understand that interpretations can be different for different readers. ] 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::""Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism." "Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians." They're both true statements made by her. You choose to accept one but not the other. I choose to accept both because she made both statements. You're being selective but I'm not. Anarcho-capitalists are right libertarians and social anarchists are left libertarians.] 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::And I think you're wrong about social anarchism not being authoritarian. Expropriation of non-coercively acquired private property is authoritarian. One is hard pressed to find an anarcho-communists who opposes expropriation.] 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::One is hard pressed to find non-coercively acquired non-possessive property. If it is coercively acquired it is fair game (Even Murray Rothbard supported large-scale expropriations). If it is possessive property (where the same person owns it by Proudhon's standard as by Locke's) it is protected. Now if you cannot show that Locke's standard is always best, then why not allow ad-hoc rulings and local standards to resolve the remainder? ] 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Proudon's standard is not the same as Locke's. Proudhon thought that it you weren't using your land, then others could steal it (at least inititally, he changed his mind late in life). That's what "possession" is. To take the product of someone else's labor just because he doesn't happen to be using it at the time, is authoritarian. But, above I was talking about anarcho-communists, which Proudhon is not. Anarcho-communists support expropriating private property and putting into into a community of goods for all to each to take "according to his needs." If someone has more than he "needs" they will steal it. And anarcho-communists would not allow people to take land as private property. When they forbid that, they are assuming they own the land and have the right to prevent others from taking it. That's authoritarian.] 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::That would kind of kill the idea of voluntary association, also. ] ] 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::True, it's not the same standard. First, they use different rationales, and second they sometimes give different results. But Proudhon's possession standard, i.e. customary use, usually involves continual maintenance and improvement, while Locke's property standard, i.e. mixing labor or later trades, usually involves intending repeated use. I'm not sure whether these standards coincide 90% of the time, or more, or less. But Proudhon's standard has been the most common among anarchists, from communists to mutualists. Of course some prefer George's LVT (Proudhon sometimes argues for it, sometimes against it) or Locke's standard (Spooner), so there are anarchists 'right' of possession but are there any 'left' of possession? ] 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Many posters reject the (A)FAQ as being biased and far-leftist (among other reasons). However, that makes the (A)FAQ more useful for showing boldly socialist (and often communist) anarchist thought, even if less useful for debating the relationship between mutualism and ancapism. Both B.3 and I.5 give the authors' ideas of possession. Both B.3 and I.5 borrow heavily from Tucker. On this issue - possession - are there any important differences between the mutualist tradition and the communist tradition? ] 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::In Mutualism, one can turn land into his own private "possession" by farming on it, for example. Then he can sells his crops in the market, because those crops are his private property. In anarcho-communism land is owned collectively and the crops are put into a commmunity of goods where each individual can take "according to his needs." As anarcho-communist Dejacque said, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." In anarcho-communism land is collectively owned by the community, and in Mutualism, land is individually "possessed."] 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::I was trying to ignore you, but Jesus Christ, are you really this stupid? 1. Communes are based on '''voluntary association''' - you choose to join one and live under a communist system. If you don't want to anymore, you leave. Anarcho-communism is NOT opposed to mutualism, it's an alternative that can easily co-exist with it. Collectives beside communes beside individual holdings with small markets. Stop claiming they contradict each other. 2. Quit misrepresenting Dejacque, it's not that anarcho-communists reject people getting the product of their labour, it's that having your basic needs fulfilled is a '''right'''. Real anarchists believe in the right to live, not starve, to have shelter, not a street beside an "anarcho"-bloody-capitalist's mansion. You haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about, so stop trying. And with this, I return to ignoring you until you're finally banned for disruptive editing and POV-pushing. It hopefully won't be long. ] 01:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Censoring what the ideologies of the authors of the FAQs are== |
|
|
Why is Donnachadelong censoring the fact that the "Anarchist FAQ" was written by "social anarchists"? When he deletes that, I delete mention that an anarcho-capitalist wrote "Anarchist Theory FAQ" in order to be NPOV. But then when he puts the fact that the author is an anarcho-capitalist back, I oput back in the the authors of the other FAQ are social anarchists, but then he deletes that fact that the that one was written social anarchists but leaves in that the other one was written by an anarcho-capitalist. Donnachadelong, what are you doing? The "Anarchist FAQ" says: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." I think it's important to know what the bias of that FAQ is just as you think it is important to know the anarcho-capitalist bias of the other FAQ. SO, I've put a POV banner on that section until the POV is taken out by either deleting the ideologies of both authors or noting it for both.] 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's not in any way "NPOV". Anarcho-capitalists identify primarily as anarcho-capitalists. "Social anarchists" identify primarily as anarchists. I can see how this is upsetting to an anarcho-capitalist, because implying that the descriptor is not necessary seems to imply control over the terminology. The problem being, is that they do, and it's an insertion of POV to overclassify in order to illustrate otherwise. ] 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I disagree that "Anarcho-capitalists identify primarily as anarcho-capitalists." I think most identify as "market anarchists" and "individualist anarchists." For example, the most popular anarcho-capitalist site anti-state.com calls it "market anarchism." And the writers of the FAQ are not referring to themselves simply as "anarchists." They make that clear. They say they are "social anarchists." If the Anarchist FAQ has pro-social-anarchism bias then it should be known, if it is going to be known that the other FAQ has a pro-ancap bias.] 21:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I agree with the placement of the pov tag. ] ] 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
After having been an anarchist for 40 years, I personally think that the entire article on anarchism is rubbish. One example: I do not see myself as left-wing. That would mean that I would be part of their parliament. We are anti-political, so which idiot describes us as a left-wing political current? The article should have a short - extremely - general paragraph describing the general idea of anarchism and then it should sum up the different currents of anarchism as they are divided in internationals: individualists, anarcho-syndicalists, platformists. The articles on these currents should also be short and general and should just sum up the different versions of individualism etc. That way - at least - there would be a general definition that every anarchist could live with and it would keep all philosophical discussions to a minimum. Underneath every current, there could be further disambiguation until all currents are happy with the description of what they think anarchism should be. Jan De Neys (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The introduction currently claims that anarchism is against all forms of authority. But what about the authority of the bootmaker?
I don't mean to sound like a pedant, but I'm worried that people will only skim the intro and leave with some misunderstandings of anarchism.
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
