Talk:Individualist anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. While making any such changes, please include an accurate and concise description of your edit in the "Edit summary" field-box. Shortly after making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Contents 1 H.D. Thoreau 2 Removed errors 3 Removed Sentence 4 This article needs expansion 5 Article needs a rewrite 6 Individualist Anarchist Symbol 7 Slight Clean-Up 8 Kev deleting sourced research 9 A Note on POV 10 please explain this sentence 11 Kevehs wholesale reverting major info and orgnization 12 Kev keeps deleting references to the American tradition 13 Kev deleting info that indiv anarchism in the liberal tradition is called "liberal anarchism." 14 American individualist anarchism 15 Kev's nitpicking 16 worldview 17 Stirner picture 18 Hogeye's chart 19 non-labor-value individualist anarchism 20 infinity and buying labor 21 RJII Proudhon quote 22 infinity and wages for labor 23 chart entries 24 infinity and profit from capital 25 No original research 26 Cite sources 27 Neutral point of view 28 RJII's removal of tags 29 Infinity's NPOV tag 30 infinity and profit 31 19th century definition of socialism 32 Infinity deleting note that it's also called "anarcho-individualism" 33 Comparison chart and sources 33.1 Original quotes 33.2 Discussion 33.3 Sources 33.4 infinity/communism 34 Blackflag blanking of anarcho-capitalism section 35 Rm pending cite. 36 Original research (again) 37 Godwin on property 38 Rothbard and juries 39 using discussion page 40 The first sentence in the article 41 sockpuppets 42 classical liberalism 43 Origins sections 44 Anarchist traditions 45 What happened? 46 Image:IndAnarchismTree01.jpg 47 Stirner 48 Comparison of Propery Systems 2.0 49 Definition of Mutualism 50 Self-published Sources 51 Footnotes 52 Criticisms of Anarcho-Individualism From Other Anarchists 53 "Individualist anarchist" as self-identification 54 Martin anti-capitalist? 55 Spam Protection Filter? 56 "education in marginal utility"

[edit] H.D. Thoreau

I want to add H.D. Thoreau to the list of Individual anarchists. As far as I know, he didn't socialize with other anarchists and he didn't call himself an anarchist, but in "Civil Disobedience" he clearly expressed anarchist opinions. I would also like to include a link to Civil Disobedience. It is difficult to include Thoreau in the article due to the way that it is arranged. Perhaps we should make a list of influential individualist anarchists, similar to the the list on the biology page.

-adam

[edit] Removed errors

I have removed the sentence linking Max Stirner to the International Workingmen's Association, not only was this organization formed after his death, but also Stirner did nothing but ridicule and despise the socialist movement:

a member of the International Workingmen's Association,

For the same reason, some blather about European IA:s being different from american IA:s was removed:

This illustrates the disinction between European individualists anarchists and the Americans. American individualist anarchists opposed collectivist philosophies of property.

who on earth can possibly link Max Stirner with collectivism? His book is nothing but a long attack on collectivism. Nixdorf 21:01, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Sentence

I removed the following from the page:

Modern individualist anarchists tend to tell both libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists to stop arguing and just leave each other be, for in a free society, each and every one would live under the system one prefers, and experience would teach every individual which system he personally prefers to live in. It doesn't matter which system is chosen by the majority, as long as each individual's freedom to choose is respected.

If someone would like to make it read more like something that should be in a 'pedia, and less like someone trying to make a personal statement, I'll gladly let it go back into the article. millerc 01:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about this revision:

Modern individualist anarchists believe both libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists should stop arguing over capitalism and socialism. They believe in a completely free society, each person can live under the system one prefers. It doesn't matter to individualist anarchists which system is chosen by the majority, as long as each individual's freedom to choose is respected.

Q0 09:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) ; Q0 18:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs expansion

I'd really like to understand the difference between the different veins of anarchism, and this one is the one I know least about. This article is really vague, and most of all it doesn't do a very good job of describing what individualist anarchism is. What is the fundamental difference between them and libertarian socialist or anarcho-capitalists?

Thanks to anyone who updates this article. I've added an expansion template to the page.

-Deicidus

[edit] Article needs a rewrite

This article was obviously written by the totalitarian so-called "anarchists" as more of a response to true anarchy (anarcho-capitalism, or individualist anarchism). Notice how they try to claim the term 'individualist anarchism' as their own, despite the fact 'individualism' and 'socialism' as used by normal people are diametrically opposed to one another. --Anonymous via Tor

Indeed, how could it be that socialists anarchists claim individualism as their own when Tucker called himself a socialist and Spooner denounced capitalism? You could try learning a little bit about the history of anarchism before you posted comments like this, but what would be the fun in making educated claims? Kev 16:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Individualist Anarchist Symbol

I've seen a very very limited group of people, including myself use the following symbol to represent Invidiualist Anarchism, if anyone's interested (i don't think it should be included in the article, really. maybe if it spreads in the future, but i thought i'd at least archive it):

Lockeownzj00 04:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lock, This is interesting because we in the Adempiere bazaar, have been looking for the succint philosophy to govern our Open Source movement and now find an 'A' symbol to coincide marvelously to our name! I was thinking that we are Marxist, but the tail leads me to Proudhon and then Mutualism and finally this. I m thinking that perhaps such theory should also now be brought up to date as part of the defining governance in the Web. Also, can u explain why is this 'A' shaped slightly different? I wont mind using either. But i reckon this 'A' will automatically distinguish itself from the 'Peace'-like sign of the main logo. Its middle double cross bar signifies to me the communal support and spirit of sharing/enriching each other by been individualistic and thus naturally creative.

- - Red1 D Oon 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight Clean-Up

Page looked as though it had been edited in a hurry. Corrected errors, elaborated slightly on some parts, etc. Would be appreciated if somebody could perhaps add more external sources, esp. primary source documents. -Virgin Molotov Cocktail

[edit] Kev deleting sourced research

Kev is wholesale deleting large sections of sourced research that show that some individual anarchists don't oppose private property and that all are not collectivists (individualist who believes in collective ownership of property? go figure). RJII 21:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner obviously believes in a right to private property. Even, popular Scottish left anarchist, Iain MacSaorsa acknowledges this. [1] I also provided a quote from Spooner on it.

And, Tucker did not believe in common ownership of land. He says this explicitly and I provided a quote but Kev deleted it. Tucker said he was a socialist but did not define it as the common ownership of property. He had a different definition. I cited his paper where he defined how he was using "socialism."

Kev is attempting to censor material that doesn't accord with his POV. RJII 22:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not removing any content at all, all of this material already exists on the pages relevant to the individuals in question. What I am removing is your attempt to take it out of context to imply something it does not, and your attempts to interpret the facts for the readers of wikipedia. Of course Tucker didn't believe in common ownership of land, none of the individualists did, but that does not support your interpretation that he endorsed private property entitlement (as he explicitly declared that he did not). I also love how you select from this since source you have provided only the parts that agree with your particular interpretation, leaving out for example the fact that the article explicitly refers to Spooner as an anti-capitalist, his rejection of wage labor as "sponging" of the fruit of labor, that his ideas where akin to mutualism and to Proudhon's (as all individualists were). And of course, you refer to the articles "Spooner makes frequent mention of the right of private property" without saying anything about the fact that this is not private property entitlement a la anarcho-capitalism, but private possession a la Proudhon. If you want to expand on Spooner's beliefs, and actually give a full account of them rather than only selecting those details that support your POV, then by all means, feel free. Please start with this direct quote from the article you just referanced yourself:

The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents -- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest -- stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments ... The question of making these loans is, with these lenders, a mere question of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be expended in robbing, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely because, on the whole, such loans pay better than any others.

or wait, how about this one:

Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and representatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war [i.e, the Civil War].

or lets take a bit of the article itself, shall we?

The following comment makes one wonder how Spooner would regard anarcho-capitalist protection firms:

Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will.

As always, the only way you can portray Spooner as remotely sympathetic to capitalism is to change its definition, along with the meanings of anarchism, socialism, and any other words that get in your way. Kev 22:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How does opposition to usury equate to opposition to private property? Get a clue. RJII 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have to resort to insults now, do you? I didn't say that opposition to usury equates to opposition to private property entitlement as the capitalists uphold it, did I? What I have said, and what I will repeat, is that you have not a shred of evidence to suggest that Spooner supported private property entitlement instead of possession via Proudhon. Do you know why you don't have such evidence? Because it doesn't exist. Kev 22:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kev, you're going to have to do better than that to prove your assertion that, when Spooner says property, he doesn't really mean property, especially when you insist on including the claim "Individualist anarchists do not posit a right to private property" without qualification. The above quotations sound like they could have been written by Murray Rothbard (who was, after all, an inveterate critic of the big banking interests). - Nat Krause 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spooner, above, is upset about the collusion between banks and government (read closer). He is not against the charging of interest in a free-market banking system. He explicity supports market-driven interest rates in Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure..."If a man have not capital of his own, upon which to bestow his labor, it is necessary that he be allowed to obtain it on credit. And in order that he may be able to obtain it on credit, it is necessary that he be allowed to contract for such a rate of interest as will induce a man, having surplus capital, to loan it to him; for the capitalist cannot, consistently with natural law, be compelled to loan his capital against his will. All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore, nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor. And, of consequence, they are nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restrictions upon the exercise of his right to obtain all the fruits, that he honestly can obtain, from his labor." RJII 16:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Note on POV

The content of many of the "explanations" of the quotes in this article are highly POV. I just want RJ and Nat to note I have no problem with them citing quotes (in fact this is what you guys should be doing). What I have a problem with is the interpretation of those quotes. If you guys are so certain about your interpretations, then you shouldn't have a problem with allowing people to interpret for themselves. Most of the quotes cites do not go against the libertarian socialist conception of socialism. You guys might want to look up some info. on anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism, and mondragon. All of these are socialist economic systems, and the direct point of all of them is to allow workers the right to work for themselves (rather than being subjugated to the will of some economic master).

Your personal conception of socialism is not the only, nor is it the "usual" conception of socialism. Also using words like "coercive monopoly" when refering to state institutions is highly POV. millerc 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the interpretation of quotes then you why don't you edit the interpretations to your satisfaction? If others don't agree they, and I, will modify your edits. That's how it works. I have no problem with others editing the interpretations. The problem is when someone comes along and deletes them in order to hide that these individuals support a right to private property. And, the common modern definition of socialism is in opposition to private property. Why was the link to the definitions of socialism article deleted? Obviously, by someone who doesn't want people to know about the conflict in definitions. If necessary, I'll just dig up something where someone says that the definitions conflict and use them as a source. It shouldn't be too hard to do, given something so obvious. RJII 20:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not hiding anything. The quotes and links are still there, but the added (and un-cited) notes tagged onto the end of the quotes are highly biased. If I changed them, you would just revert my edits, just as you tried to do when I erased them, and we would be in the same situation we are now.

The quotes are definitly NPOV, by definition, but for you to add phrases like "not the typical definition of socialism" stinks of bias. If a person called himself a socialist, then its not up to you to as an encyclopedia author to reclassify them as suits your own personal dogma.

The "definitions of socialism" links to a list of dicionary definitions and hardly constitutes a real analysis of what socialism means. Beyond that, I think your interpretation of those definitions only focuses on those aspects which fit your preconcieved notions.

I'll make my point clear, I personally think that Ayn Rand was an egoist, but she also called herself an individualist. Its not up to me as an encylopedia editor to say to our readers that her definition of individualism isn't in line with what I think of as individualism. And I don't attempt to edit the article on her to match my own personal ideology. I would expect the same respect from other editors. millerc 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, what if there were no direct quotes? There would still be interpretations of these philosophers' positions. There has to be interpretation in an encyclopedia article. No one is saying you have to agree with someone else's interpretations. You can edit their interpretation to what you think is more correct. If someone reverts it, tough luck. That's the way Wikipedia works. But, don't just outright delete them. We don't want an article that is just quotes. There has to be some commentary. By the way, I wasn't talking about you. Someone else was censoring things. RJII 00:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure but the commentary has to be NPOV. This requires representing all sides. I would really appreciate this article not being a "right wingers say...", "anarchists say..." type article.

Look, I'm trying to work with you, but some of your comments are so biased there's really little I can do to correct them. The comments that I erased add no actual information about what the individualists believed. If you want to add a section about what anarcho-capitalists beleive the individualist believed that would be a much better article structure.

Frankly, we don't have to have as many quotes, but you saying that someone wasn't a socialist when he called himself a socialist, and saying that you know what most socialists mean when they call themselves socialists is not only POV its arrogant. You can read what they wrote and I'm sure that even someone as biased as you can differentiate between the words that they use and the words your blatantly putting in their mouths. millerc 01:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in stating what "anarcho-capitalists believe." My interest is describing these philosophies accurately. And, the quotes obviously are necessary. Before I put them in, this article claimed that the individualists opposed the existence of private property. Something this essential has to be made explicit for POV-inclined individuals who don't care to take a little time to find out what the posiitions of these people actually are. Without the quotes the article would be back to the same thing --people claiming that these guys opposed private property. By the way, I didn't say that I know what most socialists mean when they call themselves socialist, I said his definition differs in regard to how socialism is commonly defined. That's a fact. Socialism is most commonly defined as opposing private property in favor of collective ownership. RJII 12:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No interest in stating what anarcho-capitalists believe? That's all you've been doing. As far as "private property" is concerned the only quote you have that has the term "private property" in it is by Clarence L. Swartz, someone who I willfully will admit ignorance on (oops... I will add Tucker to that millerc 03:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)). This is what I mean by you putting words in other people's mouths, the only thing close to this in the other quotes is the word "property". However, you insist on your idological reinterpretation of their words. You have shown no proof that what these people mean by property is "private property" which is an idologically loaded term.

Anyone who has basic knowledge of the individidualists anarchists knows that they support private property. It's because of people like you that the quotes need to be there. RJII 12:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really now? So Stirner supported private property? Gee, I'd like to see your evidence for that. I'll even make you a deal, for every bit of highly interpreted evidence you can get to show that he just might have supported private property if you squint your eyes, I will give flat out clear statement that he rejected it. Kev 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also find your insistance on using the term "common", for your own narrow view of socialism extremely hypocritical considering your further instance that such a term not be used on the disambig in the anarchism article. The least you could do is edit articles consistantly... millerc 03:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even looking at the page you linked to (and mostly created) on "common" definitions of socialism, I see the phrase "collective ownership of the means of production" much more often than I see opposition to "private property". The collective ownership of the means of production doesn't exclude people from having personal posessions. So again it seems appearent to me that you are incorrectly inserting your own bias (and using the word private property, precisely because of its misleading nature) even when you are supposedly relying on "common" (and niave) dictionary definitions. millerc 03:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware that one can support some private property and not all, such as the means of production. Contrary to your claim, I make no such equivocation. But, again, if you had basic knowledge of this school of anarchists, you would know that the Americans don't support collective ownership of anything, hence the term "individualists" rather than "collectivists." That's why the Tucker quote is there explicitly opposing collective ownership. Individuals still If you knew anything about these guys, you would know that these individuals were highly opposed to "communism." Do you need a quote on that as well? Why don't you just do some research and learn about them for yourself instead of criticizing accurate objective information just because it upsets you that these individuals are not leftists. These individuals are not quite leftists and not quite capitalists --they are something in between. Get over it. RJII 12:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

? I wasn't defining socialism above, I was saying that the page you linked to, and created, gave that definition of socialism (your interpretation of that definition being misleading). Many socialists believe that there are certain things (like say land) that no one can own (collectively or individually). This still goes against that idea of "private property" while at the same time meaning that workers still have full rights to the fruits of their own labor, and still maintain their personal possesions. I wouldn't dispute the fact that the individualists weren't communists. If they were simply anarcho-communists we wouldn't call them something else. Communists believe in a gift economy, as far as I know most of the individualists still supported some sort of market. As far as "collectivism" is concerned, its a term like "left-anarchism" its used almost exclusively by people who want to attack another person's political ideology, which is the type of carelessness I'm starting expect from you. But none of this means that they supported fundamentalist capitalism. My point is that you carelessly attribute things to them that the quotes aren't making certain that its what they actually meant. millerc 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not using "collective" in a pejorative way. What are you talking about? It's a useful and legitimate word to use to disintuish between different kinds of ownership. You used it yourself in your above response. I think the state socialist Mussolini even referred to himself as a "collectivist." Nobody is asserting that these individualist anarchists were capitalists. Quite to the contrary --they definitely were not. But, also, the Americans, being individualists, did not support collective ownership. What is essential about these people is they opposed wage labor. I'll reword the definition of socialism thing if it bothers you so much. RJII 14:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again with putting words in other people's mouths... Collective (as in a group of people, people who are still individuals) != "collectivism" (an -ism). Also worthy of mention is that individualism (the belief in empowering the individual) != egoism (the belief in self interest--usually interest in material wealth--as the greatest good). I'm glad you decided to reword your statements to make them a little factually more accurate, that's all I was asking for in the first place! millerc 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you just call mussolini a state socialist? Are you on crack?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am. RJII 20:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lol millerc 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corporatism being a form of socialism? No, sorry, I think you've just proven as fact your definition of socialism is twisted.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your definition of "socialism", of course. I'm certain that most people don't consider explicitly anti-left movements like fascism to be socialist, but it's not clear whether this is a consistent application of the common definition or an ad hoc exception. - Nat Krause 05:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Socialism is defined by the historical socialist movement (just as Christianity, or any other major social movement, can only possibly be defined in terms of its historical evolution), not any niave or anti-historical modern politically driven reinterpretation of it. You cannot possibly know what socialism is, without having some idea of its origins and history. millerc 17:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't ask a couple anarcho-capitalists to learn something about the origins and history of a social movment, its a lost cause. Kev 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please explain this sentence

"However, most individualists rejected interest and all endorsed a form of private property stemming from Proudhon's conception of personal possession, which is distinct from the private property entitlement advocated by anarcho-capitalists." There has to be a better way of saying whatever this is trying to say. What is it trying to say exactly? .."Proudhon's conception of personal possession"? .."property entitlement"?? "rejected interest"? Proudhon doesn't reject interest, he rejects government enforced banking monopoly which he believes keeps rates unnaturally high [2] The whole sentence is bizarre ..it doesn't make much sense. RJII 03:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You really haven't ever read Proudhon have you RJ? Why the hell are you continuing to remove and edit articles about him and his ideas when you don't even have a passing familiarity with them? Kev 08:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read Proudhon. Why won't you explain the sentence? Either you're a horrible writer or you have no clue what you're saying, or both. Which is it? RJII 13:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't already know what possession is, and you don't already know that Tucker advocated possession in the tradition of Proudhon, then you have not read Proudhon, or you have not read Tucker, or you have not read either. I'm guessing the latter. There is nothing at all bizarre about the sentence, all of the parts you questioned are standard terms for individualists. If you want to learn more about individualism, I suggest you make the effort to do so. Kev 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The sentence is long gone. RJII 20:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevehs wholesale reverting major info and orgnization

Kevehs, you are unjustified doing such wholesale reverts. I could have reverted everything you did, but chose to modify. Included in your wholesale revert you removed a whole new section from the article. And what is with your complaint :" RJ removed content with his edits, and biased what he left" ..biased toward what?? Your paranoia is ridiculous. RJII 18:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, the "whole new section" was just a copy and paste of what I'd wrote, which you purposefully split up to skew the article. You gave the article its very own "individualism and capitalism" section which it most certainly does not merit. You can save the in-depth comparisons for where they belong, on the anarcho-capitalist page. You also put in comments about Wendy McElroy at an individualist anarchist, which is POV. There is no paranoia here, you have an evident bias that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualism, and more that collectivism and individualism are inherently hostile to one another. Worse, you are clearly ignorant of our history, you don't even know that Bakunin's work arose from that of Proudhon's, thus you continue to remove the sentence that collectivist anarchism arose, like individualism, from mutualism. Kev 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who wrote about the relation between 19th century individualists anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in this article. It makes no sense to cloud up most of the intro with talk of anarcho-capitalism. It should have its own section. Yes, I noted that the modern individualist anarchist Wendy McElroy regards ancap to be a form of individualist anarchism. But I also noted Joe Peacott, who is a contemporary individualist anarchists opposed to anarcho-capitalism, who regards ancap as a form of individualist anarchism. Who in their right mind would not regard it so? It's certainly not collectivist anarchism. As far as your claim that collectivist anarchism rose from mutualism, that's just absurd. Mutualism was a result of anarchist thought, not the root of it. Anarchism came first. RJII 18:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did I say that mutualism was the root of anarchism? No, I said that Mutualism was the root of collectivism. If you don't believe me, please take a look at any of the writings of Bakunin. Further, it is quite disputable that Wendy McElroy is an individualit. As for what part of anarchism capitalism is properly to be considered a part of, well that is easy... none. Kev 20:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You said that collectivist anarchism arose from mutualism. That's not true. Collectivist anarchism came before it. RJII 21:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Okay RJ, when did collectivist anarchism first arise, and when did mutualism first arise? Back up your claims.

Personally, I'm sure you are correct and all the historians are quite wrong when they say silly things like, "Proudhon was a solitary thinker who refused to admit that he had created a system and abhorred the idea of founding a party. There was thus something ironical about the breadth of influence that his ideas later developed. They were important in the First International and later became the basis of anarchist theory as developed by Bakunin (who once remarked that “Proudhon was the master of us all”) and the anarchist writer Peter Kropotkin."[3]

Until you provide some counter evidence, I'm not goint to waste my time talking to you and will simply revert your plainly wrong edits. Kev 21:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My counter evidence is logic. Proudhon didn't come up with anarchism as a result of him envisioning mutualism. Mutualism is the application of his anarchist principles. You've got to find a better way to get whatever point you're trying to make across, because what you're saying is just not coherent. RJII 21:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your absence of evidence to back your claims is noted. Kev 01:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever dude. If don't straighten it out someone else will. It shows a lack of basic reasoning ability. RJII 03:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you deleteting the note that anarcho-capitalism is regarded by contemporary individidualist anarchists as a form of individualist anarchism? You're the only contemporary individualist anarchist that thinks it's not and you're not noteable. You need to be more NPOV. RJII 03:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm the only one? lol. RJ, your sources are arguably not significant enough for inclusion. You give me a few notable individualists to add to Peacott and we can put in a sentence that some individualists believe they are compatible. In fact, I will match your evidence with oppositional evidence so that we can balance the sentence by saying it goes both ways, which is probably closest to the truth. But one not-so-well-known individualist who rejects capitalism himself but has an odd opinion on the merit of its claims does not a significant source make. Kev 05:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You aren't able to provide even one contemporary individualist anarchist who thinks anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individidualist anarchism. You're being absurd. RJII 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What, is that all you want? Why, I can provide tons of evidence for that if you'd like. But lets start with the basics, how about if I contradict your claim that Joe Peacott accepts that anarcho-capitalists are part of the individualist tradition?

These organizations and publications were 'rediscovered' in the 1960s and 1970s, with both capitalist and some non-capitalist anarchists tracing the origins of their modern movements to the old American libertarian individualists. The anarchist capitalists, however, reject a key part of the thought of the individualists, that wealth is created by individual labor and that rent, interest, and profit are ways to steal this wealth from its rightful owners. Their support for capitalist economic forms puts them outside the tradition of these staunchly anticapitalist anarchists. From An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought - Joe Peacott 2003

Yes, that is Peacott's position. Anarcho-capitalalists are outside of the tradition of anticapitalist individual anarchists. But that doesn't mean they're not a form of individualist anarchism. They're not just traditional individualist anarchists. Peacott thinks anarcho-capitalists are a contemporary form of individualist anarchism.. "There are all sorts of people who label themselves individualist anarchists and we often disagree among ourselves both about what to do now, and what the future might look like. For instance, the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists. However, there are other individualists, like myself and the individualists of the past, such as Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, and John Henry Mackay, who reject capitalism as much as they reject communism." -Peacott. Get it through your head, dude. If you favor collective property, you're a collectivist anarchist. If you favor private property, you're an individualist anarchist. RJII 00:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are misusing evidence. Peacott's standard here is that anyone who claims to be an individualist is. If you held that standard, you would have to eat the last sentence of your response and change several of your edits. You want things both ways? Regardless, you will note above that I did not claim that he considers capitalists not to be individualists, so this is an irrelevant tangent. Kev 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know what is fun for me here RJ? Its that I already know that the evidence you need is out there, but I also know that you are too lame to actually try to find it. Kev 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, such vitriol, you little revolutionary anarchist you. RJII 00:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reserve vitriol for people with enough brain power to be worthy of an emotional reaction on my part. Kev 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

By the way, I hate to interrupt, but I'm curious who the modern individualist anarchists are that Kev thinks are more prominent than Joel Peacott, or whatever his name is. - Nat Krause 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would love to tell you, but I'd be doing RJs homework for him. If he can be a good little boy and back up his claims for once, given that there are at least two very prominent individualists waiting right beyond his google, I will happily modify his sentence to bring it in to context. Until then, he is just editing out of ignorance. Kev 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google is for wimps. RJII 04:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nat, he won't tell you because he doesn't know. I've seen this kind of avoidance from him before. Very transparent. Maybe if he plays with his google long enough he'll come up with something. RJII 04:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Easy to refute that. Nat, you give me your email address and I will email you the two individuals. Until then, I really like watching RJ squirm due to his horrible fear of actually making an effort to inform himself. Kev 06:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have no business changing the edit unless you present here any contemporary individidualist anarchist you may eventually find that disagrees that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I can still maintain the claim that a single individual, one not particularly well known, is not a significant source. And I do. Kev 18:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One? I have two. The other one, McElroy, is very well known. You're the only self-described individualist anarchist that disagrees. And, you don't count. RJII 20:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the only individualist anarchist who disagrees, you will find dozens on various forums such as flag.blackened.net, infoshop.org, crimethinc and others. McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist, of course she thinks your tradition is compatible with individualism, if she didn't your claims to the label anarchist would be false even at the surface. Again, RJ, I'm happy to accept your evidence when you are willing to provide it. Until then, your squirming and posturing is fun. Kev 22:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you blind? I've already provided evidence that Peacott and McElroy regard anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism. All you've done is blather a lot of nothing. RJII 23:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to only want to beat your chest and spin wheels on this issue. I've stated my reasons for rejecting the evidence you provided and set extremely low requirements for sufficient evidence. As such, I will now cease to respond to you until you provide that evidence. Kev 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kev keeps deleting references to the American tradition

Kev, stop deleting references to the American tradition. That tradition is very noteable and uniquely American. What is now ..to be an anarchist one has to be anti-Americans? RJII 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are still referances throughout the article to the american tradition. What I am removing is your over the top continuous referances to america as though it is the only place where individualism has ever existed, or as though it is somehow anathema to collectivist anarchism. It is an overly simplistic dichotomy that is already in place in the article, it doesn't need you to hammer it in every other sentence. Kev 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If you don't think individualism is anathema to collectivism then that tells me you have no clue. Individualism is the opposite of collectivism.

I was refering to America, note the context. Kev 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to call it "individualist anarchism" if it is not distinctly different than collectivist anarchism. As far as the American dilineation, American individualist anarchism supports private property, unlike Euro-individualists such as Stirner. American individualists were influenced by individualistic liberalism in America. The staunch private property tradition in anarchism was not present outside America. Your objections are strange indeed. It leads me to believe that you're simply anti-American. Why else would you want to exclude such noteable and interesting information? RJII 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

How about, because it is already present in the article, and you are merely repeating it? Kev 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's only touched on in the intro and not very clearly at that. If it's in the intro then it should be talked about in the body. RJII 03:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is from the body as it stood before your edit and stands now: "The American tradition of individualist anarchists, which began with Josiah Warren, was heavily influenced by the American liberals of the time who stood staunchly in support of private property while opposing ownership rights to unused land. Other American individualists included Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Ezra Heywood."

Now get over it and stop repeating your propaganda in every article. Kev 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who authored that and that's what you were deleting, hence this discussion. RJII 04:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if pretending that this was about one statement, rather than half a dozen you put all over the article, makes it easier for you. Then gratz, conflict over. Kev 04:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kev deleting info that indiv anarchism in the liberal tradition is called "liberal anarchism."

Kev is deleting this.. "(sometimes called "liberal-anarchism" [4] [5])" Kev, why are you deleting this information? You are becoming increasingly vandalistic for no apparent reason other than some bizarre anti-American or anti-anarcho-capitalism paranoia. RJII 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Its odd how you always find time to accuse others of personal attacks, yet you increasingly focus on my character rather than my edits. Is this becoming some kind of personal issue with you?

I have explained why I deleted the information. First, it is not a widespread usage. Yes, it is one term used to identify individualists by a certain sub-set of people, one term amongst half a dozen. So there is no relevant reason to add it into the article at this particular point, or in the absence of all other possible referances. Other than, of course, that it serves your clear purpose of closer identification between AC and anarchist individualism. As for you calling me a vandal, I will take that as an attempt at humor by someone who has on multiple occasions advocated a never ending wikipedia edit war. Kev 06:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, you display paranoia as if I'm some kind of secret agent working to promote anarcho-capitalism. It's ridiculous. That they're called "liberal anarchists" is significant, and it takes a mere one or two inch space on the page to mention it. You're out of line. RJII 13:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you are coming from with this paranoia bit. But your motivations are a side-bar. The referance to this particular label for them is insignificant and the only relevant reasons I can think of putting it there are POV ones. Kev 13:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What POV? The individualist anarchists were OPPOSED to capitalism. That's a given. No one is disputing that. All this POV stuff is only in your head. RJII 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The POV that individualist anarchisma and anarcho-capitalism share the same tradition. And really RJ, anyone who has taken a close look at your edits would be hard pressed to deny that they are POV based, even people sympathetic to them have claimed as much in the past. Kev 14:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American individualist anarchism

When is the CIA, User:RJII and cohorts going to stop making POV articles like this one? Inapproriate?! -max rspct 12:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What is POV about it? RJII 15:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Other than the fact that it includes NO new information that is not already present in the individualist anarchism, individualism and anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-capitalist article? How about the fact that it exists merely to put your own personal spin on the information already in all those articles? Kev 09:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This guy is too funny. RJII 16:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kev's nitpicking

Kev, why do you insist on deleting this sentence: "Warren initiated the American tradition, though Proudhon did have influence subsequently." Do you have some information that there was someone before Warren? According to historians, Warren was the first and he was working independently of Proudhon. Let me guess, you think this has something to do with an anarcho-capitalism conspiracy. LOL. RJII 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly not attempting to engage in a dialogue. When you are able to restrain yourself I would be happy to explain why the claim that Warren "initiated" the "American tradition" of individualism is POV. Kev 09:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok let's hear it. Who was the first American individualist anarchist? RJII 14:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] worldview

I put the worldview tag on the article. I feel it focuses too much on the Americans. Nothing is said of Godwin, little is said of Stirner, and nothing is said of Proudhon. While most of the individualists are Americans, the others are important as well. I'll try to add some stuff. RJII 05:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Just noting I'm doing a lot of editing. Trying to incorporate additional philosophers besides the Americans and re-arranging stuff as a result. RJII 21:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stirner picture

Nixdorf, you deleted the Stirner picture in the article with another, and said that the former was a "bogus image." The one you put in was stick figure ..how much more bogus can you get? RJII 19:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The "stick figure" (drawn by Friedrich Engels) is the only surviving portrait of Stirner. Any photos are very bogus since photography was not invented (well technically, but not in any sense in widespread use) when Stirner lived. Nixdorf 21:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Photography was in use while he was alive. He died in 1856. Anyway, if it's not a real photograph then it's drawing, right? Why would that drawing be more bogus than the stick figure drawing? RJII 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Further the image is taken from here [6] and if you read the text below it says "Kurt W. Fleming (l) und Max Stirner (r) irgendwann zwischen 1844 und heute" but Kurt W. Fleming is the director of the Max Stirner archive in Leipzig and is alive today. Is that image source not bogus? The "stick drawing" appears in several books on anarchism which you can find on the open market in case you want to check it I can give you references. I scanned it from a pamphlet from the early 1900s. Nixdorf 21:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also think the original drawing by Engels is more accurate as it is the only drawing made by a person who has admittedly and undoubtedly seen the man and know his looks. Nixdorf 21:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hogeye's chart

What are the sources cited for the assertions made in the chart that was posted by Hogeye? --AaronS 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! I just finished adding primary sources for each cell. Hogeye 00:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything that isn't original research? --AaronS 01:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes aren't original research. RJII 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They are when they are primary sources and they are used to make an argument that doesn't seem to have been published in any reliable sources. Please, provide some reliable sources. --AaronS 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between interpreting what original sources say, and interpreting what secondary sources say about the original sources? Nothing. No matter what, there's going to be editorial interpretation of what's being said. RJII 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you read up on the various policies and guidelines that I listed on the anarchism article discussion page. Then you might see where I'm coming from. --AaronS 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Aaron's a funny guy. He thinks secondary sources are better than primary sources, and that primary sources are original research. What can you say? Hogeye 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, if you can't keep yourself from ridiculing anybody who disagrees with you or challenges your assertions, I'm going to seek administrative action. I've already asked you to be civil on countless occasions. --AaronS 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, you need to read the pertinent Wiki NOR info. Please pay particular attention to the following:

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Hogeye 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, please read the rest of the policy. --AaronS 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I still have no idea why you think it's original research. Do you want an expert to say the Bakunin is really an anarchist? Do you want an expert to assert that, when Bakunin says, ""The land, and all natural resources, are the common property of everyone," that he really means it? Are you saying that there is an analytic claim hidden somewhere in the chart? If so, then tell us, specifically, what it is. There's a recurring pattern here - you've repeatedly asked for citations, then frivolously rejected them. It's getting very hard to take you seriously. Hogeye 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RJ, I like your clarifications and additions, but think they should be in the key (following the chart, where the quotes are) rather than in the chart itself. The chart is no longer an easy to read synopsis, like this one was. Would you consider putting the details and qualifications in the part after the chart, and reverting to the cleaner version of the chart itself? Hogeye 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe there should be footnote for the boxes where a little more explanation is needed if you think it's too much information. What do you think? RJII 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. Hogeye 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be kind of complicated. Maybe I should just prepend it to the quote sections. RJII 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart is sort of complicated if you try to insert Stirner's view into it. He would (my guess) just dismiss it and say there are no "yes" or "no":s to be given, since he does not believe in society or morality, and all such questions presuppose society and moral rights. I don't know how that could possibly be properly represented either... Perhaps one could make a remark? Nixdorf 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd probably have to add a new column for Stirnerism. Might not be a bad idea. RJII 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but what should I write in the fields? I am tempted to fill in all fields with N/A. Nixdorf 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-labor-value individualist anarchism

What does anyone think about working the individualist anarchists who didn't espouse the labor theory of value into the article (such as Molinari)? It would be controversial of course, but there are sources that say they're anarchists. RJII 04:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a tough one, but I would say they should be included. The notion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of indAnarchism is already there: the section on anarcho-captalism. Hogeye 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity and buying labor

Infinity, where in that Proudhon quote does it say it is not permissible for an individual to sell his labor? The individualists support paying for labor. That's central to their philosophy. Communists oppose wages, individualist support wages. RJII 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A fuller quote:

"The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. Why do you talk of wages? The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost of the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a sale. The workingman has sold nothing; he knows neither his right, nor the extent of the concession which he has made to you, nor the meaning of the contract which you pretend to have made with him. On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud."

Infinity0 ^talk 18:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that in there that someone is not allowed to sell his labor? RJII 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It says you can't buy someone's labour. Infinity0 ^talk 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, this quote explicitly says that paying someone wages for labour is wrong. And, it says nothing about profit. Infinity0 ^talk 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Moreover, look at this quote from Proudhon: "all value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work; and that, consequently, labor alone is the source of revenue among men." (Philosophy of Misery).

Compare Tucker, a disciple of Proudhon: "Really, in the last analysis, labor is the only thing that has any title to be bought or sold. Is there any just basis of price except cost? And is there anything that costs except labor or suffering (another name for labor)? Labor should be paid!" Labor and its pay -Tucker

Well OK, which is why now it says "exploitative? Yes, some no." In that quote, Tucker doesn't say anything about wages. Obviously labour will be paid; what else can you exchange it for? I don't know who's more important, Proudhon or Tucker, but Proudhon is older, so I've taken him to the the main viewpoint. In your Proudhon quote, it sounds like he is talking about the situation then, where labour WAS composed essentially of wages. That quote doesn't give a justification or an assertion that that is right. Infinity0 ^talk 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward." Labor and Its Pay -Tucker. Proudhon has the same position. That's where Tucker got his philosophy on wages. RJII 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing communism with individualism. Communists are the ones that oppose wages for labor. RJII 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? That quote is weird, I thought Tucker was NOT an anarcho-socialist? And that socialism is against wage labour? And saying "Proudhon has same view" is all very well, but up there is a quote showing he has a different view... Infinity0 ^talk 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no condmenation of wages in your Proudon quote. RJII 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you... On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud. He is specifically attacking paying wages for labour. Infinity0 ^talk 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. He is saying that there's not enough wages. You don't understand Proudhon. He supports wages for labor --he advocates it. The whole point is that a person should be paid his "full" wages --rather than an employer deducting a portion of wages as profit. What do you think Proudhon advocated a banking system and money for? In order to pay for labor. RJII 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

His definitions of wage is different from what is normally meant. Wages, for him, are: the cost of the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a sale. (same passage) whereas normally, it is just the money paid for some specified quantity of labour - ie, the price of a sale. Infinity0 ^talk 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity> "I thought Tucker was NOT an anarcho-socialist?"

Tucker called himself a socialist, but his definition of socialist was someone who believes that cost is the limit of price. That is not the modern definition of socialist, which is someone who believes in collective ownership of the means of production. That is what is so confusing. To understand Tucker, it is absolutely necessary to keep his outdated definition in mind.

Infinity> "And that socialism is against wage labour?"

Socialism is against profiting from other peoples' labor. It's okay according to Proudhon and Tucker to pay someone for work, but not to make a profit from someone's work. An example: If I hire someone to weed my garden, that's okay - I make no profit from that labor. If I hire someone to weed Mr. Smith's lawn, and get paid more from Mr. Smith than I give to the laborer, then that is wrong since I made money on the deal without working. It's farming out labor for profit that Proudhon and Tucker don't like. Hogeye 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, so "making profit from labour is exploitative"? But Proudhon also says "That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just." How can the labourer be paid the full wage? And then, the capitalist is making a profit, since he made money without doing anything. Infinity0 ^talk 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it goes both ways. The capitalist should be paid as well --but only in proportion to his contribution and no more. Once he starts taking more than the proportion than what he produced, he is unjustly taking from the employee what he produced. Wages must be proportional to production. RJII 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by produce? How can you take a portion of the production? The only way it can work both ways is if they are paid proportional to the profit; which is not what is commonly known to be a wage. Infinity0 ^talk 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The produce is what your labor has produced. The value of your produce is how much labor it took to produce it. There is no profit in the mutualist system. Equal amounts of labor are paid equally. No one is paid less than the value of his labor --everyone is paid the full value of his produce (taking for granted the labor theory of value). Proudhon and the other mutualists advocated using money backed by labor to pay for labor to ensure profitless transactions. RJII 19:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII Proudhon quote

I shall prove even that interest on capital is but the materialization of the apllorism, All labor should leave an excess. But in the face of this theory, or rather this fiction, of the productivity of capital, arises another thesis no less certain, which in these latter days has struck the ablest economists: it is that all value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work; and that, consequently, labor alone is the source of revenue among men. How, then, reconcile the theory of farm- rent or productivity of capital -- a theory confirmed by universal custom, which conservative political economy is forced to accept but cannot justify -- with this other theory which shows that value is normally composed of wages, and which inevitably ends, as we shall demonstrate, in an equality in society between net product and raw product?

RJII, this quote is about labour and values, not wages. Proudhon glancing mentions wages, and does not show any approval nor disapproval. Can you providing another, more specific quote? Infinity0 ^talk 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that quote is fine, but can be cut down to the essential, "All value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work..." This makes it clear that Proudhon was not against wages per se, but only profit from labor. Hogeye 19:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity and wages for labor

Infinity, why did you take out the part of the table dealing with wages for labor? You said in your summary that's it's irrelevant to communist anarchism. But, you're wrong there. It's very relevant. Anarcho-communists oppose wages. RJII 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they oppose all exchange for labour. Labour is labour is labour; there's nothing to exchange it with. Infinity0 ^talk 20:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true. So, we'll add that to the chart then --a comparison of who thinks it's ok to buy and sell labor. RJII 20:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chart entries

This is why I think we should probably have more than yes and no in the chart. People not familiar with the stuff don't understand. I think there should be enough written in the boxes to explain. RJII 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If we select the quotes well, and explain in the key, that should do it. Right now, the quotes are pretty apt. No matter what we do and how well we explain it, there will be those who misunderstand or object. We just have to be patient with the neophytes. The whole purpose of a chart is to have a clean "at a glance" view. Hogeye 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of Infinity's edits don't make a lick of sense.

1. "Is profiting exploitative?" The term "exploitative" is connotative and vague. Besides, the straightforward "Is profit from capital or labor ethical?" already covered it.
2. "Is re-distribution of profit permissible?" Vague. Infinity says "yes" for commies, but since profit itself isn't permissable to commies, the correct answer is "no." And again, it was already covered in "Is profit from capital or labor ethical?"
3. "Can labor be exchanged?" Vague. Infinity again says "no" for commies, but a commie wouldn't object to, e.g. I'll back up your hard disk if you'll rake my leaves.
4. "Is profiting from others' labor exploitative?" Connotative term; already covered in previous formulation.

So I'll continue to revert that nonsense. Hogeye 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The first one was RJII's idea. The second one, I changed from "expropriation of profit", which means the same thing. Infinity0 ^talk 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online sez:

ex·pro·pri·a·tion

Pronunciation: (")ek-"sprO-prE-'A-sh&n

Function: noun

the act of expropriating or the state of being expropriated; specifically : the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty

Anarchists do not want a State to take property. Marxists do, but anarchists definitely don't. Besides, "expropriation" is a loaded term. Hogeye 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say they do. Infinity0 ^talk 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, you're too aggressive, dude. You could have at least kept the wiki-version of the table, and not reverted to the bloated, obsolete HTML code.

Hogeye, there may be a slight problem with calling it "Collectivist Anarchism." The Bakuninites were called the "Collectivists" (proper noun). They still supported private ownership of the product of labor, but opposed private ownership of the means of production. So, what holds for the communist anarchists (abolishing all private property), doesn't hold for Bakunin. RJII 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Actually, I don't even want to make that assertion. Bakunin doesn't really have a coherent economic philosophy, as other writers have noted. RJII 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to own something a priori? I also do not believe that the Bakunin quote supports what is being asserted in this article. --AaronS 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity and profit from capital

What do you mean you can't profit from capital? If you lend money you can charge interest and profit. If you own land you can rent it out and profit. RJII 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In A-Com, capital doesn't exist. So how can any question related to it be valid? Infinity0 ^talk 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. For anarcho-communists, capital (aka "the means of production") clearly exist; they want it to be collectively owned. Hogeye 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't exists is saying it's considered an illegitimate activity to use a means of production in order to profit. In other words, profiting from capital is not legitimate. Since you're being nitpicky, we can just change it to "Is private ownership of capital permitted?" RJII 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with N/A? The meaning is clear. Infinity0 ^talk 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"N/A" is clear? You must be joking. RJII 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It's better than "no" because the question is invalid anyway. It doesn't even exist, how can it be property?? Infinity0 ^talk 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you just delete all the product of labor quotes? RJII 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Italian Federation quote since I couldn't find anything about it, verify it. I think your change is fine, only the quotes don't mention the MOP at all,. Infinity0 ^talk 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Infinity0 ^talk

You deleted other quotes as well. And, is it our fault that you don't have access to the document? RJII 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Bakunin quotes since he was an anarchist, not anarcho-communist. Infinity0 ^talk 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? Anarcho-communists are anarchists too. Bakunin was known as a "collectivist." RJII 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But not all anarchists are anarcho-communists... He might well have collectivist opinions, but that doesn't mean he represents anarcho-communism, which developed later. Infinity0 ^talk 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "anarcho-communist" was too narrow. I have relabeled it "Libertarian Socialist" aka anarcho-socialist. Now all Bakunin quotes are okay. Hogeye 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bakunin wasn't an anarcho-socialist, he was an anarchist, with no adjectives. His views are no more collective than normal anarchists. Infinity0 ^talk 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He was a "collectivist." That was the name for the Bakuninites --"Collectivists." Bakunin split from the individualists (Proudhon) and advocated collectivism in means of production, and the communist anarchists split from the Collectivists and advocated collective ownership of the produce of labor. RJII 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason, Infinity prefers "means of production" to "capital." Whatever. So all the hoopla was a mere verbal dispute! Hogeye 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, RJII changed it to MoP, when I pointed out that capital doesn't exist in anarcho-communism. I guess he just wants to put a NO in that box. I'll change it back then, since you don't like it. Infinity0 ^talk 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, Infinity; in your terminology what is the difference between capital and man-made means of production? In my terminology, they are exactly the same. Hogeye 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by man-made means of production? A machine is man-made, surely? And a machine obviously isn't capital. Infinity0 ^talk 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding??? A machine is a perfect example of capital. From Capital (economics): "The word "capital" is short-hand for "real capital" or "capital goods" or means of production." Hogeye 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What's a non-man-made means of production then? Infinity0 ^talk 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Land, oceans, cows, etc RJII 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I thought that was already covered under "land" and "natural resources". Infinity0 ^talk 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...I am not getting anything coherent out of this discussion. Capital is "means of production", which is something used to produce other goods. Cows are capital, machines that produce are capital, and labor is capital. Man-made and non-man-made do not apply. Saying that capital does not exist in anarcho-communism is saying that cows are not capable of producing milk. Anarcho-communism simply doesn't agree with the use of capital... - blueperson(no account)

Just as "anarcho-communists" are classified "anarchists"...."land" and "natural resources" can also be classified as "capital" - blueperson (no account)

[edit] No original research

This article has very little in terms of reliable sources. Because of this, as well as the fact that this is a relatively obscure topic, I believe that there may be some original research. This can lead to point of view issues. I will expand on this in due time. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the first NOR issue: the "comparison of property systems." It is entirely original research, and inaccurate. I commend the efforts of the editors in their research, but I suggest that they take a look at what Wikipedia is not. Moreover, it is overly simplistic; not all philosophers agree (I'm going to add a note about this). Unless some reliable sources -- and I think that the standards for such are higher for this contentious article, so I mean scholarly works published by respectable universities, etc. -- can verify the claims made here, I'm going to remove it. Thanks for your cooperation, and, please, as much as this may annoy you, be civil with your responses, and don't forget your wikiquette! --AaronS 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You're making a claim here that not all philosophers agree. So, point out a philosopher that doesn't agree. RJII 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm claiming that: (a) it's original research, (b) not all philosophers agree, and that (c) reliable sources are needed for verifiability. So, that's only one of my points, and it's the least important one, because it does not directly deal with Wikipedia policy. Let's deal with the others, first. --AaronS 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's backed by a lot of research. Original research doesn't mean a Wikipedia editor researched and reported it; it means it's not sourceable. If you think one of the "yes"'s or "no"'s are not true of all philosophers, all you have to do with put a "(some say no)" or "some say yes" like was done for the question on title to land for the individualists. I hope you will have a source for that though. RJII 15:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you read the pertinent policy more thoroughly. Namely, original research is:

• a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"
• In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.
• it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

I refer you especially to: (a) entries about theories and (b) what counts as a reputable publication. Thanks. --AaronS 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Therefore, it's not original research. RJII 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're just going to ignore my legitimate concerns? --AaronS 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What you quoted makes it clear that it is not original research. RJII 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why would you leave this out: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." ? RJII 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I left it out because it is not pertinent to my concerns, and because it is qualified with other statements. This tag is an example. If you still feel that there is no original research in this article, then I suppose you wouldn't mind if we had an outside perspective. --AaronS 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a serious question. Why don't you make any real contributions? I haven't seen you doing any research. It seems all your activities revolve around nitpicking what others are doing. RJII 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to nitpick. I don't have much time for heavy-duty research. I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. I have a real job. --AaronS 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess. Security guard? RJII 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite sources

Many claims in this article are uncited. I will compile a list of uncited claims in due time. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

Due to problems with sources and original research, I feel that this article might not present a neutral point of view. Namely, I am concerned that there are not many, if any, third-party (secondary or tertiary) sources backing up what is presented in the article. I will expand on this in due time. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII's removal of tags

Please do not remove tags that have been placed in the article by other editors. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't put an NPOV tag on an article without explainin in Talk exactly why, so the preceived POV problem can be fixed. You're in violation of policy. RJII 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tags, like anything else, need to be justified by the person adding them. They don't just stand there at the whim of the person adding them. That said, it may well belong here. Gene Nygaard 03:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:NPOV "explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article." The tag is supposed to be a tool so we can fix any possible NPOV problem. If you can't articulate what the problem is the tag shouldn't be there. How is anyone supposed to know what to fix? You need to point to any specific NPOV problems you see so they can be fixed. RJII 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't quite given me a chance to. By the way, the template page is not the policy. No policy has been violated by me. I do, however, point you to the policy on reverting, which you have violated. --AaronS 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't violated the 3RR. Cease your dishonesty. RJII 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple misunderstanding does not imply dishonesty. Unlike you, at least based on your actions on the anarchism article discussion page, I'm perfectly willing to apologize for my mistakes and misunderstandings. I'm sorry. --AaronS 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. RJII 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinity's NPOV tag

Infinity, can you explain what you think is POV about the section where you put the tag? No one knows what to fix unless you explain it. RJII 17:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• All the anarcho-capitalism quotes are from Rothbard. If that's the only anarcho-capitalist in existence, then he doesn't deserve 1/3 of the quotes.
• You're passing off extreme views such as Dejacque as representative of all collective anarchism.

Infinity0 ^talk 17:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reasonable points. It's not hard to find qoutes from other anarcho-capitalists. As far as Dejacque, he is representative of communist anarchism. The title in the table needs to be "anarcho-communism." RJII 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity and profit

Infinity you said in your edit summary: "any qualms about exploitation all stem from labour." You're not aware of the individualist anarchist arugment that profit from rent of land is exploitative, are you? That's not a "theft" of labor. RJII 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, put land in then. Retail trade and capital all stem from labour, though. Infinity0 ^talk 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm going to say "capital" because it's not limited to land. For example, renting money for profit (usury) is also considered exploitative. RJII 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19th century definition of socialism

Webster's dictionary from 19th century: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Albert R. Parsons, What is Anarchism? Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, as Defined by Some of its Apostles (Chicago, 1887) This explains why some of the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists" while at the same time supporting private property (including the means of production) and opposing collectivism. Just for the record. RJII 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, does it? "The anarchists seek the same ends [the abolition of wage-slavery] by the abrogation of law, by the abolition of all government, leaving the people free to unite or disunite as fancy or interest may dictate, coercing no one..." Further, "The great natural law of power derived alone from association and cooperation will of necessity and from selfishness be applied by the people in the production and distribution of wealth, and what the trades unions and labor organizations seek now to do, but are prevented from doing because of obstructions and coercions, will under perfect liberty—anarchy—come easiest to hand." And, "The function, the only function of capital is to confiscate the labor-product of the propertyless, non-possessing class, the wage-workers." Moreover, "The great class-conflict now gathering throughout the world is created by our social system of industrial slavery. Capitalists could not if they would, and would not if they could, change it. This alone is to be the work of the proletariat, the disinherited, the wage-slave, the sufferer. Nor can the wage-class avoid this conflict. Neither religion nor politics can solve it or prevent it. It comes as a human, an imperative necessity. Anarchists do not make the social revolution; they prophesy its coming." Sounds very Marxist to me. I don't think that you can take that Webster's definition and then say "this must be what individualist anarchists thought socialism to be." --AaronS 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

None of that matters. All that matters is the definition of socialism, not anarchism. By the way, that's not written by an INDIVIDUALIST anarchist. Parson's was a Chicago anarchist --a communist. RJII 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter? Parsons is elaborating on anarchism and socialism. I just don't see how you can take that one, single quote and then assume that individualist anarchists must have viewed socialism in that way. I'll tell you what, that's news to me. And since that's news to me, I would like a reliable source. --AaronS 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm doing. All I'm doing is quoting the Webster's dictionary of socialism. I'm not making an argument. Read again. RJII 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes you are. You're arguing that that is how individualist anarchists perceived socialism to be. And you are arguing that that is the contemporary definition of socialism for that time. Both are arguments that need to be backed up with a lot more than one out-of-context quote. --AaronS 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that is was the Webster's dictionary definition; I'm asserting it. Do you think Parson's is lying? RJII 05:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By placing it as you have in the article, you are suggesting rather explicitly that individualist anarchists ascribed to that definition of socialism. You can't just take what Webster's said at the time (if that is even the whole definition -- we don't know, because we're getting it through Parsons) and then jump to the conclusion that that is what individualist anarchists believed at the time. --AaronS 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. I modified it to say that that's not necessarily the definition they use. RJII 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinity deleting note that it's also called "anarcho-individualism"

Infinity stop deleting the mention that it's also called "anarcho-individualism". It's not a "neologism" as you claim --the term has been around for a long time --probably almost a century. RJII 21:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Google search for "anarcho-individualism" brings up 347 hits. Also, you may want to convert all the notes on the page into <ref> tags, since the one you just inserted isn't showing. -- infinity0 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a disputed tag on infinity's claim that the term is used "occasionally." I think it's used often. 447 Google hits (as opposed to infinity's false claim of 347 hits) looks like often to me. RJII 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing that tag. That's 447 for anarcho-individualism, versus 63,100 for individualist anarchism. I have almost never heard the term "anarcho-individualism" used, let alone occasionally, and certainly not often, as you originally implied. I don't even think that the mention should be there. Your only reference is that Levy article (which seems to be your only reference for a lot of your claims). I don't think that that's enough. More importantly, the fact that Levy used it does not mean that it isn't a neologism -- and it certainly does not show that it has been around for "almost a century," as you imply. Scholars invent words all the time -- words that don't catch on. --AaronS 16:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not a neologism because Levy is using it. If Levy is not enough, there are plenty more sources, if you want me to cite them. It's used often enough. "Occasional" is a very subjective term. 447 hits doens't prove that it's "occasional." 447 Google hits is DEFINTELY not "rarely." RJII 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide sources that can prove your claim that the term "anarcho-individualism" is used more than rarely, go for it. I'm going to change it to "comparably rarely." --AaronS 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources to prove that it's used "comparably rarely"? RJII 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The comparison of Google hits. And the fact that you haven't provided a source showing that the "sometimes" is justified without any sort of limiting adjective. --AaronS 18:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then take the quantitative terms out totally like I had it before. infinity is the one that started with this. RJII 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the quality and character of the Google hits for "anarcho-individualism"? Most of them cook down to references to a small number of posts by non-individualists and frequently by opponents. All seem to be recent, save references to a Rudolph Steiner quote that isn't really germane. This note probably serves to confuse, rather than clarify. Libertatia 20:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm actually convinced that it should be removed. --AaronS 23:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing sourced material? What harm is there in the reader knowing that it's also called anarcho-individualism? Here is another source. Bookchin calls it anarcho-individualism: [7] RJII 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That was sort of what I was getting at. Bookchin uses that term in the context of his very controversial redrawing of the anarchist map in Social Anarchism vs. Lifestyle Anarchism. It's a very ideosyncratic usage. It just isn't helpful information. Libertatia 21:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison chart and sources

[edit] Original quotes

(NRxCO) "The land, and all natural resources, are the common property of everyone, but will be used only by those who cultivate it by their own labor. Without expropriation, only through the powerful pressure of the worker’s associations, capital and the tools of production will fall to those who produce wealth by their own labor." - Michael Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism.

(NRxCO) "The only way, in which ['the wealth of nature'] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." - Lysander Spooner, Law of Intellectual Property. "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land anarchists deny. I...maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves." -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty

(NRxCO) "The only 'natural' course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by 'mixing his labor' with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others." Murray Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State.

(LdxCol) see (NRxCol) above.

(LdxInd) Though, most labor-value individualists oppose buying and selling of land itself, they maintain that an individual should be allowed exclusive of use of land against any claims of the community. "Anarchism holds that land belongs not to the people but the occupant and user..." - Benjamin Tucker Liberty X May 19 1894. But Warren, Andrews, and Greene supported an individual holding transferable title to land itself; for example, "the prime cost of land, the taxes, and other contingent expenses of surveying, etc., added to the labor of making contracts, would constitute the equitable price of land purchased for sale." -Josiah Warren, Equitable Commerce

(LdxAC) "If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. 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. There is no requirement, however, that land continue to be used in order for it to continue to be a man’s property." -Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State

(PoLxCol) "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." -Joseph Dejacque, Letter to Proudhon "If we preserved the individual appropriation of the products of labour, we would be forced to preserve money, leaving more or less accumulation of wealth according to more or less merit rather than need of individuals." -Carlo Cafiero, Anarchism and Communism "In other words, labour and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism." -Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism

(PoLxInd) "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." -Clarence Swartz, What is Mutualism "...the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." -Lysander Spooner, The Law of Intellectual Property

(PoLxAC) The labor theory of value is erroneous. Profit is not exploitative and contract is supreme. "The capitalist, then, is a man who has labored, saved out of his labor (i.e., has restricted his consumption) and, in a series of voluntary contracts has (a) purchased ownership rights in capital goods, and (b) paid the laborers for their labor services in transforming those capital goods into goods nearer the final stage of being consumed. Note again that no one is preventing the laborers themselves from saving, purchasing capital goods from their owners and then working on their own capital goods, finally selling the product and reaping the profits. In fact, the capitalists are conferring a great benefit on these laborers, making possible the entire complex vertical network of exchanges in the modern economy." - Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty.

(CGxCol) The means of production are owned by the community in collective. "The revolution as we understand it will have to destroy the State and all the institutions of the State, radically and completely, from its very first day. The natural and necessary consequences of such destruction will be: ... f. the confiscation of all productive capital and of the tools of production for the benefit of workers’ associations, who will have to have them produced collectively." - Bakunin, The Program of the International Brotherhood.

(CGxInd) All products of labor are the property of the individual, regardless of in the form of capital or not."Proudhon scoffed at this distinction between capital and product. He maintained that capital and product are not different kinds of wealth, but simply alternate conditions or functions of the same wealth. ... For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society." - Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism.

(CGxAC) "Production begins with natural resources, and then various forms of machines and capital goods, until finally, goods are sold to the consumer. At each stage of production from natural resource to consumer good, money is voluntarily exchanged for capital goods, labor services, and land resources. At each step of the way, terms of exchanges, or prices, are determined by the voluntary interactions of suppliers and demanders. This market is "free" because choices, at each step, are made freely and voluntarily." - Rothbard, Free Market.

(LrxCol) Will you stand up for that piece of chicanery which consists in affirming 'freedom of contract'? Or will you uphold equity, according to which a contract entered into between a man who has dined well and the man who sells his labor for bare subsistence, between the strong and the weak, is not a contract at all?" -Peter Kropotkin, An Appeal to the Young

(LrxInd) It is considered exploitative to pay an individual for less than the "full produce" of his labor. - "The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. Why do you talk of wages? The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost of the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a sale. The workingman has sold nothing; he knows neither his right, nor the extent of the concession which he has made to you, nor the meaning of the contract which you pretend to have made with him. On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right [ethicality] of usury" -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty I,3 Note- Tucker used the term "usury" to mean profit --both from capital and labor.

(LrxAC) see (PoLxAC) above.

[edit] Discussion

I moved the very messy and confusing sources from the comparison chart to this talk page, so that we could begin to work on converting them to references/footnotes, which would be clearer. It just didn't make much sense to me the way it was before. --AaronS 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, please be honest in your edit summaries. If you're reverting, you're reverting; you're not "reparing" a "damaged" part of the article. --AaronS 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert the article. I put back in the portion of the table that you damaged. RJII 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you put it back the way it was. So, it was intentional. Why are you doing this to the table? RJII 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, now that I think about it. Anarcho-capitalism is included in individualist anarchism. Only one change needs to be made that some individualist anarchists don't think profit is exploitative. RJII 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the chart is horrible now that infinity meddled with it. RJII 17:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It always was kind of horrible, simplistic, and uninformative, IMO. --AaronS 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism in general"? What is that? RJII 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream anarchism? I tried to make the table compare mainstream types of anarchism, not extreme forms. -- infinity0 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that anarcho-communism is mainstream. Maybe it was in the past, but not anymore. By including all kinds of anarchism except individualist, there is no way you're going to be able to make the chart correct. RJII 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By changing "anarcho-communism" to "social anarchism" I was implying exactly that it is an extreme form. -- infinity0 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How about using "social anarchism" instead of "anarchism in general" then? -- infinity0 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Social anarchism" is vague. It has no precise meaning. RJII 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Social anarchism? -- infinity0 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. "Social anarchism" RJII 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What about "Social anarchism (left anarchism)" with both links included? -- infinity0 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Too vague. RJII 18:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It represents a general form of anarchism, which is what we are trying to do - simplify things. -- infinity0 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. RJII 18:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to simplify things. Vague is good - specifics leads to dispute. -- infinity0 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not when you're dealing with me. I go for precision. RJII 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version of precision is your own POV. -- infinity0 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And your version of NPOV is your POV of NPOV. Ironic, isn't it?

Not when I'm being vague, and generalising. -- infinity0 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole table is really, really awful and simplistic. It isn't at all clear that the social/individual divide is something we'll be able to delineate in terms of these very specific distinctions about property. My guess is that most anarchists, of whatever stripe, are not fully committed to any clear and specific set of (anti-)property principles. Works like Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy have been important because they've been helping the debates along into more concrete territory, but there's still an incredible amount of talking at cross-purposes going on within the movement. Both "sides" tend to reference some form of Proudhon's distinctions between forms of property and/or possession, but since Proudhon's language changes (although his ideas change much less), many of the disagreements are as much semantic as substantive. The table strikes me as inescapably a bit of original research. Libertatia 21:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

TBH, I'd just rather delete the whole table. It's unhelpful. But as long as it exists then it should be as NPOV as possible. If that means being vague, so be it. -- infinity0 21:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145]

More coming soon. -- infinity0 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [Peter Kropotkin Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223]

-- infinity0 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That must be Proudhon, not Kropotkin as the "General Idea" is one of his books. Proudhon's opposition to wage labour is expressed very strongly in that work. BlackFlag 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I misread my source. Sorry. -- infinity0 16:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So he's anti-profit, but then he wants the company to be in business for profit. RJII 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say that. -- infinity0 21:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to paint Proudhon as a capitalist. The man was recognised as a socialist by Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin and so on. He called himself a socialist as well. He explicitly and repeatedly attacked wage labour and argued for co-operatives to replace it. He was a forefather of market socialism, in other words. And the whole point of "profit" is that it changes in terms of which kind of workplace you are talking about. In a co-operative, it is any income above costs. As labour is not a cost, it is a labour income. In a capitalist firm, labour is a cost and so is a non-labour income. Property is theft, as Proudhon noted. BlackFlag 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the definition of "cost" which excludes, if I read you right, labor by shareholders? —Tamfang 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Shareholders who work get paid for their labour as well as leeching off the labour of others via the shareholding. Shareholders do not do labour to get profits from their shares. -- infinity0 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how this statement is relevant to the question I asked. —Tamfang 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't answering your question, since it was directed at BlackFlag. I was just saying cost doesn't exclude labour by shareholders. -- infinity0 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In a capitalist workplace, workers are hired for wages. Wages are therefore a cost. Profit is therefore any surplus above costs, including wages. It is a non-labour income. In a co-operative, workers are not hired. Any surplus is then, in effect, a labour income. Costs would include, say, raw materials but not labour. There would be no "shareholders", just workers who would democratically manage their common work affairs -- one person, one vote. Hope that clarifies things. [User:BlackFlag] 10:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I take this to mean that, in such an enlightened organization, the disutility of labor either does not exist or is borne by the workers without direct compensation. —Tamfang 01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity/communism

infinity, you're stating in the chart that "social anarchists" support private ownership of the means of production. What is your source? RJII 20:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't say private ownership of means of production. It says own. Workers are allowed to own their tools, as is shown in the source. -- infinity0 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Of course the means of production can be owned in anarcho-communism. The distinction is that they're not owned INDIVIDUALLY but communaly. It's communism --not individualism. Where, in what source, does it say an individual owns the means of production? RJII 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not communally either. The individual owns it for the purposes of using it. But really, I'd like to delete that table altogether. -- infinity0 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me in the source where it says that. RJII 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You want the table to be included; the burden of proof is on you to provide sources that all social anarchists want common ownership of MOP, and all social anarchists disallow property in products of labour. I'd rather the table be deleted; it's horrible. -- infinity0 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you. You're making the claim in the table that social anarchists support individual ownership of the means of production. That's what I thought --you don't have source. RJII 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin (like other communist-anarchists) argued that individuals would have their own means of production if they were not communists under communist anarchism. In Act for Yourselves Kropotkin explicitly states that a peasant "who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would continue to work them. (pp. 104-5) He makes the same point in the Conquest of Bread (pages 95-6 and page 81), as does Malatesta. As for communism, they would have available the product of society to use as they wanted ("the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases" -- Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought) That was the whole point of the thing. BlackFlag 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, it's not systemic thing then. Anarcho-communists, at least some of them, will allow others to have private ownership of the means of production in the sense that they're not going to force their system on anyone? That's like saying individualist anarchists will allow communal ownership --of course they will, but it's not the advocated system. RJII 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, anarchists argue for "possession" ("occupancy and use") in Proudhon's sense and, as such, non-communists have the right to have the land and tools they use. Individualist anarchists (in general) hold the same principle (at least in land). BlackFlag 08:25, 1st April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackflag blanking of anarcho-capitalism section

blackflag why are you removing anarcho-capitalism? Many sources indicate it is an individualist form of anarchism. You said that Rothbard says it is not individualism. What is your source for this? RJII 13:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While "strongly tempted," Rothbard could not call his ideology "individualist anarchism" because "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." ("The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View")

Rothbard might have preferred not to call his philosophy by that name, but it was still an individualist anarchism. There are plenty of sources for it being so.

• "Anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism" Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Individualist Anarchism, Daniel Burton
• "the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists" Individualism Reconsidere, Joe Peacott
• "[What the liberal economists] had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ralph Raico
• "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a 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." Anti-Capitalism, Simon Tormey
• "Anarchist solutions to social questions have ranged from a total communism to an equally zealous individualism. In between are found sundry recipes, from anarcho-syndicalism to anarcho-capitalism." "While individualist anarchism is one possible form of capitalism taken to an extreme, left-libertarianism represents an alternative tradition. Contemporary Anarchism, Terry M. Perlin
• "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." Anarchism, Carl Levy
• "Today individualist anarchists in the US call themselves anarcho-capitalists or libertarians; some though not all, are organized in the Libertarian Party." Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green, Ulrike Heider
• Also, Wendy Mcelroy is an anarcho-capitalists who prefers to call herself an individualist anarchist. RJII 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about ind-anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism. At most there should be one sentence (or perhaps two) saying something to the effect or "some argue anarcho-capitalism to be a type of ind anarchism, because etc etc, others disagree, for more info see anarchism and anarcho-capitalism". -- infinity0 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is a broad category of anarchisms, just as "social anarchism" is. I've never seen it claimed that anarcho-capitalism is a social or collectivist anarchism --of course it's individualist. RJII 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your own opinion. Many disagree it's anarchism at all. The section should be in the article but it should be toned down, and be less assertive. -- infinity0 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Many agree that it is anarchism. All you have to do is note that some dispute that it's anarchism. RJII 13:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rm pending cite.

Rothbard sought to introduce Lockean property rights and marginalism into individualist anarchism: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung."

- FrancisTyers · 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research (again)

I removed the claim that individualist anarchism is necessarily opposed to collectivism, because the only source backing up the claim was a quote from an arguably ambiguous primary source. I do not like using primary sources in controversial articles to back up controversial claims. I'd be happy to accept a reliable, reputable, secondary source. --AaronS 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, since a primary source is good, and certainly better than no source at all. Can you find a source that says individualist anarchism is not individualist? i.e. not against collectivism? Meanwhile, let's stick with the obvious, logical, and sourced statement that individualists are opposed to collectivism. 216.219.253.189

I'm not claiming that individualist anarchism is necessarily not opposed to collectivism. I'm simply asking you to back up the statement that it necessarily is. Primary sources are not good enough for controversial statements in controversial articles, and this is an example of original research. If your claim is true, then there should be plenty of secondary sources that will back it up. --AaronS 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added Kropotkin (to Spooner and Tucker) as a primary source that IA is opposed to collectivism. Have you found any sources whatsoever that say otherwise? Here's the note right now:

"The only way, in which ['the wealth of nature'] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." - Lysander Spooner, Law of Intellectual Property. "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land anarchists deny. I...maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves." - Benjamin Tucker, Liberty. The communist anarchist Kropotkin, a critic of individualism, agrees that individualist anarchism is opposed to collectivism: "The individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but little sympathy amongst the working masses. Those who profess it - they are chiefly 'intellectuals' - soon realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist or they retire into a sort of Epicurean amoralism, or superman theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche. The great bulk of the anarchist working men prefer the anarchist-communist ideas which have gradually evolved out of the anarchist collectivism of the International Working Men's Association."[8]

216.219.253.189

None of these sources say that individualist anarchism is necessarily opposed to collectivism. I'm going to remove that claim if you cannot find any reliable, reputable, and scholarly secondary sources that back it up. --AaronS 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many secondary sources that assert that individualist anarchism opposes collectivism. Just google "individualist anarchism collectivism" and you'll get a bunch. Even the Infoshop Anarchist FAQ says so.

Secondary sources: "Libertarian individualists will never join the ideological battle to liberate collective entities whose existence they see as fictional..." - The Open Underground Network

This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom (including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257] Proudhon also argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are based on property and so authority (see the section "Characteristics of communism and of property" in What is Property?). Thus the Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced with that of "society." - Infoshop's An Anarchist FAQ

"The individualist view of the person is quite different from that of the collectivist. The individualist views people as responsible agents who, even in present-day, unfree society, have to take at least partial responsibility for the situations in which they find themselves, and therefore are capable of changing their situation, at least in part." - Individualism Reconsidered by Joe Peacott 216.219.253.189

None of this backs up the claim that individualist anarchism is necessarily opposed to collectivism. --AaronS 17:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course individualism anarchism is opposed to collectivism, otherwise it wouldn't be called INDIVIDUALIST anarchism. Individualism is a reaction against collectivism. It is a declaration that the individual has a right to do what he wills without taking the community into consideration other than to refrain from aggressing against others. TheIndividualist 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godwin on property

This sentence, "Godwin supports individual ownership of property, defining it as "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." Does not support the quote it includes. Anarcho-communists also believe that every laborer is entiteled to the product of their labor, yet they do not support individual ownership of property. I seriously doubt Godwin was an anarcho-communist, but without a better quote to support the claim it will eventually have to be removed. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communists do not support individual ownership of property? Uh, yeah, they do, Blah.

I hope this was sarcasm. TheIndividualist 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More likely an inability to read Blahblahblahblahblahblah 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed your statement was wrong that "Anarcho-communists also believe that every laborer is entiteled to the product of their labor." They believe an individual has a right to what he "needs." If you produce more than you "need" and someone else "needs" your excess then that excess goes to that person. What you produced is irrelevant to what you get. The individualist gets to keep what he produces. THis is from the Anarchism article: "An early anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque, the first person to describe himself as "libertarian".[16] Unlike Proudhon, he argued that "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."[15]" The question is who decides what you "need." Individualists reject the community's authority to decide what an individual "needs." The collective becomes a government of sorts under anarcho-communism because some sort of democractic process is set up instead of leaving the individual to decide for himself what he wants to keep, what he wants to give away, and what he wants to sell and for what price. That is why individualist anarchism is more anarchistic than anarcho-communism. Do you see individualist anarchists saying all "gift economies" and sharing will be abolished? No! The individual has absolute authority over the product of his own labor whether he wants to give it away or sell it. But you see Kropotkin saying that all money, wages, and trade will be abolished. Kropotkin is an authoritarian under the guise of an anarchist. TheIndividualist 04:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your post appears to be a series of straw-man arguments conflating what some anarcho-communists believe with what you interpret is a consequence of that belief. The fact is that many anarcho-communists strongly maintain worker control of the workplace and worker control of the product of their labor. The fact that such control is not on an individual level reflects the fact that the production is not individual, as anarcho-communists time and again affirm the right of lone laborers to retain individual possession of whatever they produce. They simply believe that workers who labor in a cooperative venture should retain proportional representation over the goals and methods of that venture. But really, go on making your arguments about the "absolute authority" granted by private property rights. I like those arguments, because they sound nothing like what I've heard from the individualist anarchists I know. This tells me a lot. Not only does it tell me that you probably aren't the individualist anarchist that you claim to be, oh Mr. Sock Puppet, but it also tells me something about just how far your commitment to anarchism goes. Your discussion of theory is fine and good, but I'm frankly not interested in your personal opinions on the matter and they certainly don't pertain to this encyclopedia. As such, thats all the time I'm going to spare for your speculation. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're dead wrong. Anarcho-communists are opposed to individuals having a right to the product of their labor. "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." IndividualistAnarchist 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I suppose Peter Kropotkin wasn't an anarcho-communist: "when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work...[W]hen we see a family inhabiting a house which affords them just as much space as are considered necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with that family and turn them out their house?... And finally, when we see a cutler, or a clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody" Act for Yourselves

Or perhaps you don't consider any of those people to be individuals. Berkman must not have been an anarcho-communist either, "abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people." What is Anarchism?

By the way, which one were you before this latest incarnation, RJ or Hogeye? Perhaps that is a false dichotomy. Really though, I can only blame myself. Why am I wasting my time providing counter-evidence to your claims when you are certain of your conclusions regardless of the evidence? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. Kropotkin will only allow people have as much as they "need". He wants people to have a house that "affords them just as much space as are considered necessary for that number of people." What if someone wants a big luxurious house? Anarcho-communism is about people receiving what they "need" and no more. It is not about individuals having a right to the product of their labor at all. Kropotkin and all other anarcho-communists are authoritarians. IndividualistAnarchist 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that imperative for you to squeeze everything into your filter that you will ignore everything that doesn't fit? Okay, I will continue to bite on one condition, that we can have an honest conversation. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rothbard and juries

The section on anarcho-capitalism makes a big deal about Rothbard not wanting juries to decide law, but according to the anarcho-capitalism article it depends on the anarcho-capitalist. Other anarcho-capitalists like the Tannahills would not have statutory law. So what is in the article is a criticism of Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism instead of anarcho-capitalism in general. So, it should probably be removed or modified significantly. TheIndividualist 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] using discussion page

Okay, Aaron, I'm using the discussion page. The only trouble is that when we (individualist anarchists) use the discussion page, you tell us to edit the article. Please stop playing mind games with us, Aaron.

Please don't tell me not to edit an article again. You act like you personally own every anarchism article on Wikipedia. You kinda don't. How about you stop reverting my edits and use the discussion page? And please grow up and stop running to the admins and whining and complaining every time someone makes an edit that you don't like. Please just grow up. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chill a bit and try communicating without attacking people. --AaronS 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself? Shannon^{duck talk} 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And you're telling me to grow up? That's fresh. --AaronS 11:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first sentence in the article

Individualist anarchism (or philosophical anarchism) is an anarchist philosophical tradition that has a strong emphasis on equality of liberty and individual sovereignty. The tradition appears most often in the United States. The roots of individualist anarchism include Europeans such as William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Emile Armand, Oscar Wilde, Han Ryner and Max Stirner.

You are saying, who keep reverting to this (Blah and Aaron), that Europeans had a stronger influence on American anarchy than American anarchists and libertarians in the 18th and 19th centuries? This just isn't so. Read American history! And both of you, will you please stop taking the clean-up code off the article. I have a right to put it there and it should be there. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. I somehow got the template in there twice and then had to take one back out. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppets

to Blahblahblahblahblahblah: I see you are pulling the old Whose sockpuppet are you, trick?, to TheIndividualist. My question, Blah, is Whose sockpuppet are you? It's obvious by your join date and your immediate activity, which hasn't relented, that you are a sockpuppet. Let's stop the attacks and nasty accusations and get to work editing an encyclopedia. Agreed? Shannon^{duck talk} 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Take this discussion to Blah's talk page. It doesn't really belong here. Blah is a sockpuppet. But, he already explained that. And he's within Wikipedia policy. --AaronS 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] classical liberalism

"Individualist anarchism is sometimes seen as an evolution of classical liberalism, and hence, has been called "liberal anarchism."[2]"

Yes, exactly. That's why the thinkers who came up with classical liberalism, i.e., Jefferson are the great influencers of American anarchy. Thoreau was a big influence. That's why they should be prominent in the first sentence rather than the list of Europeans that keeps popping up there. It is insane to claim that Europeans had a greater influence. period. Daniel Shays and his militia were the real heros. They didn't just pontificate about freedom. They fought for it. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins sections

I argue that Godwin and Proudhon were not origins of individualist anarchism. Max Stirner developed his form of individualist anarchist without the influence of those. At the same time, in the United States, Josiah Warren developed his form without their influence. Without sources saying Proudhon or Godwin influences Stirner and Warren, the origins section looks like original research. I know that Proudhon has some influence on some individualist anarchists after individualist anarchism already existed in the U.S., but he was not an "origin." DTC 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist traditions

I removed the claim that individualist anarchism was not "true" anarchism because "traditionally," anarchism is collectivist and opposed to markets. It's hard to get much more "traditional" than Proudhon, or Greene, or Warren. Libertatia 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

What happened to this article? I saw a slew of sources for anarcho-capitalism being individualist anarchism here a few days ago and they're all gone. The whole article is changed.Anarcho-capitalism 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we bring the old article back? A lot of good information and sources are gone.Anarcho-capitalism 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That was well-written and informative, but had more to do with justifying anarcho-capitalism as anarchism than explaining ancap. I moved the whole section to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism as the leading section called "What anarcho-capitalists say." Hope you don't mind. PS: You can always recover an article or section by using the "History" tab. Nothing is ever lost on Wiki. Hogeye 19:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do mind. Why don't you work with the existing article instead of replacing it? I prefer to old anarcho-capitalism section. I don't like the chart either. It segregates Anarcho-capitalists as if they aren't individualist anarchists. Maybe we can work with it though. How about instead of putting types of anarchism, we put different philosophers? Tucker can be one, Spooner, Rothbard, etc? Because it is very hard to generalize. Each individualist anarchist has his own philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

An earlier version of the chart specified "labor-value" individualists. I agree that ancap is a form of IA. But I think you'd agree that the early indAs held the Labor Theory of Value ("cost the limit of price") while ancaps tend to hold the marginalist subjective theory of value.

What is appropriate for this IndA article when we get to anarcho-capitalism. It seems to me we should describe what ancap is. My concern with the old version was that it was, instead of a description, mainly a polemic about why ancap should be considered a branch of indA. That's not what encyclopedia readers are looking for in this article. But it is entirely appropriate (and necessary!) in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. Do you see my rationale? Hogeye 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker does not agree with Spooner on land. Rothbard doesn't agree with Friedman, etc.Anarcho-capitalism 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In Friedman's anarcho-capitalism, anything goes, as long as market forces win out. If the market wanted to only support land owership while using it (like Tucker) then that would be the case.Anarcho-capitalism 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. I understand. Friedman takes a "value-free" approach to economics, and separates it from his libertarian values. He says that anarcho-capitalism (as economics) does not necessarily lead to libertarian results, but that it has a libertarian bias. You've read "The Machinery of Freedom" too, I'll bet! Hogeye 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do you say we get rid of the table? Individualist anarchism is too complex to generalize. You have to seperate the philosophy of each individualist anarchist because they are all unique.Anarcho-capitalism 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you write that all individualist anarchists reject "capitalist economics"?Anarcho-capitalism 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying the good parts back over. But, the sources aren't showing up for some reason. Can anyone figure out what's wrong? Thanks.Anarcho-capitalism 19:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

THanks for fixing the sourcing, Intangible.Anarcho-capitalism 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did that flow chart come from? How are we supposed to edit it?Anarcho-capitalism 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's one of my creations. You can't edit it. (Unless you have InDesign, in which case I'll gladly give you the file.) Do you have suggestions for improving it? Hogeye 02:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IndAnarchismTree01.jpg

Hogeye 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would put a direct line from Spooner (abolitionism) to Rothbard. RJII 21:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hogeye 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice tree. Put it into the article. Nixdorf 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! Hogeye 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How about putting Adam Smith in the classical liberalism box? Proudhon credited Adam Smith for the LTV, and I believe Warren did as well. RJII 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Hogeye 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking good. RJII 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one could put in a box at the top level for Hegelianism as an influence on Stirner. It is quite obvious, easy to prove and very distinct from liberalism. Also an arc over from Proudhon, since Stirner includes a critique of Proudhon in his book. What do you say? Nixdorf 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable Force frivolously deleted the IndAnarchismTree, claiming it was original research. Naturally I put it back in. Hogeye 04:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's original research and has been deleted numerous times (along with Hogeye's other concept trees). It needs to be removed. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, RJII liked it, that's very reassuring. It's still OR and many people have objected to your trees in the past. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming that it's original research, but don't explain why. It looks like a synopsis of well-known facts to me. What exactly do you contest, UF? Which line of influence do you think is wrong? Hogeye 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Even without the question of original research, the tree is simply wrong. Rand never influenced Rothbard, and Gustave de Molinari is not a frontrunner or founder of the Austrian School. Carl Menger, who is the founder of the Austrian School, was a social-democrat.[9] Intangible 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The chart is very problematic.Anarcho-capitalism 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, you are mistaken on both counts. Rothbard joined Rand's group and was a part of her "collective" until a well-known falling out over Rothbard's theist wife occured. The Frence economistes (Say, Bastiat, Molinari, etc.) were an influence on the Austrian school.[10] Hogeye 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That Rothbard drank tea with Rand's cult is indeed widely known, but you cannot say that "Rand influenced Rothbard" by that. So many economicsts have influenced the Austrian School, like the Physiocrats and Salamanca School. Intangible 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1950s Rothbard had his own New York libertarian group, which for a while interacted with Rand's. Rothbard and Rand influenced each other before the unpleasant falling-out which was de rigueur with Rand and not at all rare with Rothbard."[11]

"... you introduced me to the whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy." - letter from Rothbard to Rand.

You are correct that you could go farther back in time to the 16th century and say the Salamanca school influenced the Physiocrats influenced the Economistes influenced the Austrians. The diagram only takes it back one step. Hogeye 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stirner

Stirner never styled himself an individualist anarchist. --AaronS 05:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, nor an anarchist. I changed it to "Max Stirner was a philosophical egoist..." Hogeye 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner was an individualist anarchist. The sources say he was.Anarcho-capitalism 15:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of his type of individualist anarchism is "Egoism."Anarcho-capitalism 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But Stirner doesn't satisfy our definition of anarchist in the anarchism article since he didn't support the elimination of the state. He did reject the legitimacy of the state, so you might call him a quasi-anarchist. Stirner himself explicitly denied that he was an anarchist - he called himself an egoist. Egoism is not a branch of anarchism. Egoism is the ethical theory that the beneficiary of an action, from an ethical perspective, is the actor (not some other, which would be altruism.) Stirner certainly influenced many anarchists (and fascists, and moral skeptics, and existentialists...) but he was not himself an anarchist. The title of "individual anarchist" is more honorific than factual. If you can find a passage in "The Individual and His Property" that calls for elimination of the State, I'll be convinced otherwise. Hogeye 17:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Every source I have seen says he's an anarchist. For example, "Max Stirner is the most individualistic and 'egoistic' of the anarchist thinkers. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2005.Anarcho-capitalism 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Both Godwin and Stirner developed versions of anarchist doctrine based on individualism, but there the resemblance ends." Adams, Ian, Political Ideology Today, page 117Anarcho-capitalism 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner's "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism." Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyAnarcho-capitalism 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some anarchist thinkers, such as the German Max Stirner, refused to recognize any limitation on the individual's right to do as he pleases or any obligation to act socially..." Encyclopedia Britannica, Anarchism article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I going to have to compile a huge list of sources for Stirner, as I did for anarcho-capitalism?Anarcho-capitalism 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner says the state has no legitimacy and that it only exists because people let it exists, and that no one should sacrifice their self-interest to the state. He doesn't say that people have a duty to eliminate the state (because people have no moral duties at all), but that the state will be eliminated by people converting to Egoism. That sounds like anarchism to me.Anarcho-capitalism 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When did Stirner ever "explicitly deny that he was an anarchist"? Do you have a source for that?Anarcho-capitalism 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the oft-repeated claim (e.g. in the Max Stirner article): "Stirner himself explicitly denied holding any absolute position in his philosophy, further stating that if he must be identified with some '-ism' let it be egoism — the antithesis of all ideologies and social causes, as he conceived of it." Presumably this includes anarchism. However, this may be a bogus attribution - I could not find anyplace in "The Individual and His Property" nor in the two other essays available in English by Stirner that said this. It may be one of those urban myth quotes. So I put a ^{[citation needed]} by the claim in that article.

There is no doubt that many anarchist historian have implied, or even claimed, that Stirner was an anarchist, but note that all your quote hedge on the issue. Not one explicitly claims that he was an anarchist as opposed to a thinker who had anarchist ideas, or enhanced anarchist theory ("anarchist thinker".) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seem to agree with my take: "Stirner's name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism." That's factual; we might put something like that in Wikipedia. (Oh! You've alreadly changed it. Great minds think alike!) But since he doesn't satisfy the definition of "anarchist," we shouldn't give the false opinion that he is one. Again, Stanford EP seems to support this:

The affinity between Stirner and the anarchist tradition lies in his endorsement of the claim that the state is an illegitimate institution. However, his elaboration of this claim is a distinctive and interesting one. For Stirner, a state can never be legitimate, since there is a necessary conflict between individual self mastery and the obligation to obey the law (with which the legitimacy of the state is identified). Given that individual self-mastery trumps any competing consideration, Stirner concludes that the demands of the state are not binding on the individual. However, he does not think that individuals have, as a result, any obligation to oppose and attempt to eliminate the state (insofar as this is within their power). Rather the individual should decide in each particular case whether or not to go along with the state's demands. Only in cases where there is a conflict between the autonomy of the egoist and the demands of the state, does he recommend resisting the requirements of law. That said, whilst individuals have no duty to overthrow the state, Stirner does think that the state will eventually collapse as a result of the spread of egoism. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Also, notice that Stirner's egoism does not rule out an egoist using the State as means to his ends, e.g. to rule the unenlightened dumb masses. Hardly anarchist!

Finally, although there is apparently no Wiki guideline about internal consistency, if we call Stirner an anarchist we would need to change the definition of "anarchism" in the anarchism article. Hogeye 15:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Propery Systems 2.0

The change in heading from "Individual Anarchism" to "19th century individualists (labor-value)" is an improvement, but it's going to get some flack from modern mutualist IAs (like Kevin Carson.) Perhaps even better would be "Mutualist Individualist Anarchists." Other than that, it's looking good. Hogeye 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the 19th century individualists were mutualists. I don't think Spooner is considered a mutualist. As far as I know, Tucker never called himself a mutualist. I'm not aware of any sources that says he was, but there may be. You have any information on this?Anarcho-capitalism 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Any IndA who thinks cost is the limit of price is a mutualist. Spooner is probably the only (famous) exception among 19th century American IndAs. Hogeye 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker was fine with prices being set by supply and demand. I don't think he was like Warren on that. As far as I know he didn't advocate using labor notes and all that to match up labor cost with price. Tucker just thought prices would match up with labor if the state weren't monopolizing credit. I'd like to see a definition of mutualism. I'm not sure if having a labor theory of value is a sufficient condition of being a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you check out the mutualism article? Tucker was opposed to what he (and other mutualists) called "usary" - rent, interest, and profit from other people's labor. He definitely believed that cost is the limit of price - usary is basically profiting without laboring. But you are correct that he would not use force to prohibit someone charging rent or interest or employing someone for profit. In Spoonerian terminology, he considered usary a vice, not a crime. It was wrong, but shouldn't be prohibited by force, but rather by moral suation. He thought that usary would be impossible in a free market. (Unlike we anarcho-capitalists, who think profit will still exist in a free market.)

Here are some writings of Benjamin Tucker. Check out the "Money and Interest" section to verify his mutualism. Hogeye 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did he ever call himself a mutualist? I can't find a source for that, nor a source for anyone else calling him a mutualist. I know he was influenced by Proudhon's mutualism, but he didn't advocate the same things as Proudhon. For example, I don't think he advocates mutual banking at all. That seems pretty basic to mutualism.Anarcho-capitalism 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep finding sources saying Proudhon and his mutualism is not individualist but in between individualism and collectivism. "Mutualism can be seen as a midpoint between individualist and collectivist versions of anarchy." (Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Thought) And sources saying mutualism is a form of social anarchism. "Social anarchism can be divided into several schools: The oldest of these is mutualism...under mutualism, the state would be abolished, and factories would be owned and controlled by the workers in the form of producers' cooperatives. Compensation would be retained in the form of labor checks paid to workers by the people's banks, corresponding to the number of hours they worked. Private propertyy would be retained under this system." (Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey) That is not Tucker's philosophy. Where does he advocate "producers' cooperatives"? Where does he advocate labor checks?Anarcho-capitalism 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the definition of mutualism in the Wikipedia article coming from?Anarcho-capitalism 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see Kevin Carson on Mutualist.org calls him a mutualist, but he may be applying the label wrongly.Anarcho-capitalism 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the essay Free Banking, with particular attention to the part starting:

"Mr. Bilgram then writes to Liberty in defense of his contention that State banking is preferable to mutual banking on the ground that 'mutual banking cannot deprive capital of its power to bring unearned returns to its owner.' Mr. Tucker proceeds to demolish that position:"

Also note that William B. Green, who literally wrote the book ("Mutual Banking") on mutual banking, was a close friend and associate of Tucker, and in various essays Tucker repeatedly endorses Greene's positions.

Tucker did not use the term "producer's cooperatives," but your quote uses that term quaintly - the same quote stresses that "private property would be retained." Obviously "producer's cooperatives" cannot be interpreted in the modern socialist sense as collectively owned. Tucker would have called it something like producers' association. Hogeye 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain this: "The next point along the spectrum of anarchist attitudes is Proudhon's mutualism. Proudhon differs from the true individualist anarchists beause he sees history in social form and, despite his fierce defence of individual freedom, thinks in terms of assocation." (George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements)?Anarcho-capitalism 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Tucker advocate producer's association, as Proudhon advocates.Anarcho-capitalism 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is looking like he supported some of mutualism but not all of it. So I don't understand how he can be called a mutualist. Mutualism is always defined as Proudhon's philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a mistaken Eurocentric view. Greene wrote his book before Proudhon had a clue; Warren practiced it (i.e. his Time Store) when Proudhon was in diapers. You always have to keep in mind that anarcho-socialists like to marginalize individualist anarchism and American contributions to anarchism, and that most histories are written by anarcho-socialists. Proudhon's version of mutualism was closer to socialism, so they stress him. Hogeye 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know Warren was not a mutualist. He never advocated mutual banking of any kind. The only thing reminiscent of mutualism is the use of labor money. I don' think that alone makes you a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mutualism is an economic theory or system based on the labor theory of value which states that equal amounts of labor should receive equal pay." (from the Wiki article, and the commonly held definition by Carson and others.) Mutual banking is just one mutualist program that used to be popular. Thus, Warren was a mutualist.

On a terminology note: Tucker uses the terms "voluntary co-operators"[12] and "associations."[13] Hogeye 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that that's the definition in the Wiki article, but I think the definition is wrong. Mutualism is more than that. The definitions I see in encyclopedias go beyond that. For example: Mutualism can be seen as a mid-point between individualist and collectivist versions of anarchism The term was adopted by Proudhon and his followers for the economic system, which in Proudhon's eyes reconciled property and communism. His principle was that each person might possess his means of production (tooks, land, etc) either singly or collectively, but should only be rewarded for his labour, thus eliminating profit and rent and ensuring a high degree of equality. Exchange was to occur through an ethical form of bargaining in which each party sought only an equivalent for what they were offering. Integral to this scheme was the establishment of a mutual credit bank which would lend to producers at a minimal rate of interest, covering only costs of administration. "(Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought). Where does Warren talk about establishing a mutual bank?Anarcho-capitalism 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Tucker wanted competing banks. Proudhon wanted one national bank.Anarcho-capitalism 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice that the Blackwell quote you give doesn't define mutualism, but merely gives Proudhon's take on it. Notice that the bulk of the quote is about labor value, what others called "cost is the limit of price." Only the last sentence refers to mutual banking. That is merely a pet project of Proudhon's. Tucker wrote extensively about banking, but stressed non-monopoly. He repeatedly endorsed Greene's book. (Incidentally, I notice that the blackcrayon site defines mutualism in terms of its position on land!)

Just caught your last note. Proudhon went archist for a while, trying to use the State to form a national bank. Later, it was to be a voluntary federation. But these are details of one man's program, not pertinent to the definition of mutualism. Hogeye 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Blackwell quote is a definition. It's under the "Mutualism" entry in the encyclopedia. By "national bank" I didn't mean State operated bank. I just meant a central bank for the anarchist nation. He didn't advocate competing banks like Tucker did, who thought that competition in lending would lower the rate of interest.Anarcho-capitalism 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI Here's the Journal of Libertarian Studies issue about mutualism. From the intro editorial:

MANY OF THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY individualist anarchists, and in particular those thinkers associated with Benjamin Tucker’s journal Liberty, sought to combine a political theory based on individual sovereignty and self-ownership with an economic theory based on the labor theory of value. Like Marxists, they tended to condemn the wage system as oppressive, and interpreted profit, rent, and interest as forms of exploitation; unlike Marxists, however, they regarded such exploitation as the product not of the unhampered market but of governmental intervention, and so recommended abolishing not private property but the state. While advocating competition, free markets, and (some form of) private ownership, these thinkers nevertheless often called themselves “socialists,” i.e., opponents of capitalism—because by “capitalism” they meant not markets per se but the prevailing economic division between capitalists and workers, which they saw as the product of state interference with markets (specifically, the ban on the private issuing of money, and the enforcement of property titles not based on personal occupancy). Another term they sometimes applied to themselves was “mutualists.”

Hogeye 18:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok but how about the individualists who didn't call themselves mutualist? Warren never did. He didn't see the state as the cause of individuals not receiving their full product either. He just thought prices shouldnt be determined by supply and demand but by calculating labor costs.Anarcho-capitalism 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker never applied the term to himself either.Anarcho-capitalism 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I go by current definitions, since political terms change considerably over time. It doesn't matter much what people call themselves. The way I see it:

mutualism - the political and economic belief that labor is the only source of value, and that profiting from any source other than labor is wrong.

Some consequences and deductions of this definition are:

1. Sticky ownership of land is invalid.
2. Usary (rent, interest, profit from employing someone) is wrong.
3. Labor notes may be a good alternative to govt monopoly banks. Mutual banking is one application of mutualism, not a defining characteristic.
4. Virtually all 19th century individualist anarchists were mutualists. Warren, Tucker, Andrews, Greene, and so on. Only Spooner may be an exception, since he supported IP. For many (i.e. those who reject ancap as anarchism), "individualist anarchism" and "mutualism" are synonymous. E.g. Kevin Carson, a leading proponent today, uses them interchangably.

That mutualism definition is your own definition. Any one of us can come up with a definition. Your definition is not the same as the ones in the sources. According the definition in the sources, Warren is definitely not a mutualist. IP doesn't have anything to do with mutualism, for or against.Anarcho-capitalism 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Kevin Carson acknowledges that individualist anarchists don't have to be mutualists. From his web site: "most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value."Anarcho-capitalism 19:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Marxists also think "that labor is the only source of value, and that profiting from any source other than labor is wrong." They're not mutualists.Anarcho-capitalism 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Mutualism

Yes, I need to add something to the definition I gave above, to differentiate it from socialism.

mutualism - the political and economic belief that 1) labor is the only source of value, thus profiting from any source other than labor ("usary") is wrong, 2) support for free markets, 3) support of private property in both the product of labor and capital goods ("means of production"), and 4) support of a use/occupation based form of private property called "possession" for land and natural resources.

From this definition, it follows that: Some consequences and deductions of this definition are:

1. Sticky ownership of land is invalid.
2. Usary (rent, interest, profit from employing someone) is wrong.
3. Labor notes may be a good alternative to govt monopoly banks. Mutual banking is one application of mutualism, not a defining characteristic.
4. Virtually all 19th century individualist anarchists were mutualists. Warren, Tucker, Andrews, Greene, and so on. Only Spooner may be an exception, since he supported IP. For many (i.e. those who reject ancap as anarchism), "individualist anarchism" and "mutualism" are synonymous. E.g. Kevin Carson, a leading proponent today, uses them interchangably.

Since IP (intellectual property) implies profitting from "ownership" of an idea (patents and copyrights) above and beyond the labor expended, and is made possible only by state monopoly enforcement, mutualists (except Spooner) reject it.

It's not true that IP protection requires the state. Private defense firms can protect it. Spooner says that an idea is the product of an individual's labor, so it's private property. If that's the case then that's not materially different than protecting any other kind of product of labor. That can be justified on a natural law basis, or it could simply be a society where everybody agrees to set up IP laws.Anarcho-capitalism 01:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's conceivable that a PDA will enforce IP, but they are at a competitive disadvantage with those that don't, and not in a position to enforce it against all those people who don't subscibe to pro-IP PDAs. The marginal labor the patent or copyright holder expends for the copy I make is zero, so although Lysander argued as you say, I don't agree with that rationale. I agree with Tucker, that for something to be property, it has to be economically scarce. See Intellectual Property: The Late Nineteenth Century Libertarian Debate by Wendy McElroy. Hogeye 03:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is natural law that a person's ideas are his private property and has a natural right to protect others from using them, then PDA's certainly are in a position to enforce it against other people that don't agree with IP rights. Those attempting to copy the idea would be the aggressors.Anarcho-capitalism 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a footnote from "Native American Anarchism" by Schuster:

"A kind of mutualism was arrived at independently and contemporaneously in England, by John Gray, in America by Josiah Warren, and in France by Pierre Proudhon. Max Nettlau, Der Vorfruhling, 90-92. Peter Kropotkin, "Anarchism," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th edition (New York and London, 1929), I, 875."

From Kropotkin's 1910 Britannica article:

"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839). It had also its precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist, Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen's 'New Harmony', considered that the failure of this enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and the lack of initiative and responsibility. These defects, he taught, were inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the community of goods. He advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty. In 1827 he opened in Cincinnati a little country store which was the first 'equity store', and which the people called 'time store', because it was based on labour being exchanged hour for hour in all sorts of produce. 'Cost - the limit of price', and consequently 'no interest', was the motto of his store, and later on of his 'equity village', near New York, which was still in existence in 1865."

Worth noting is that mutualism is not necessarily anarchistic. There have been minarchist and even authoritarian mutualists (e.g. Wilhelm Weitling).

Hogeye 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published Sources

I notice that "anarcho-capitalism" has quoted Kevin Carson. Given that "anarcho-capitalism" excludes "An Anarchist FAQ" as a valid source because it is "self-published," I wonder how he can quote Carson as he is also "self-published" (both book and web). Is it because he can be used to include "anarcho"-capitalism into anarchism? Surely if Carson can be quoted, so can the authors of "An Anarchist FAQ"? I would be interested to hear the logic why one self-published source is acceptable and another is not. BlackFlag 09:37, 27 September 2006

Is there a Wikipedia policy against self-published books?Anarcho-capitalism 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, read the section on "self-published" sources. It includes books. I'm perfectly happy to quote Kevin, but I would like to see you explain why you are happy to quote self-published sources in his case but exclude "An Anarchist FAQ" as "self-published." I would like to see the logic for these two contradictory positions. BlackFlag 11:01, 29 September 2006.

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't excluded "An Anarchist FAQ".Anarcho-capitalism 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Anyone clear on how these are supposed to be set up? They don't appear to be working properly. Donnacha 08:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Anarcho-Individualism From Other Anarchists

I notice that the Anarchist Communist article includes criticism from Anarchist Individualists and Anarcho-Mutualists, but offers no section for rebuttals from Anarchist Communists. Shouldn't the Anarchist Indivdualist article offer criticisms from Anarcho-Communists to make it fair? Full Shunyata 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for this, in my view, is that "anarcho"-capitalists like to highlight the disagreements between individualists and the more left-wing varieties of anarchism to support their contention that "anarcho"-capitalism is a kind of individualist anarchism. Anarcho-collectivists/communists/syndicalists, on the other hand, are less interested in over-emphasising the differences as there have been efforts since the days of Emma Goldman to transcend them. Donnacha 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean the "contention" that it's a kind of individualist anarchism? It is your contention that it's a form of social anarchism?Anarcho-capitalism 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, no, it's my view that it's not a form of anarchism at all. Donnacha 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. I don't see social anarchists discussing the differences between social anarchism and individualist anarchism so much as self-labeled "anarcho"-capitalists do. However, if there is going to be a "criticism" section in the Anarcho-Communist article with input from Anarcho-Individualists, shouldn't it be vice versa as well? Full Shunyata 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll see if I can whip one up.Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it was only yesterday that the criticisms of individualism in An Anarchist FAQ were cause for scandal and edit wars. <g> Libertatia 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That happened? Yeesh, sad. I only think there should be a section for criticism of Anarcho-Individualism from Social Anarchists because there is a section for criticism of Social Anarchism from Anarcho-Individualists. That's all, I have nothing personl against Anarcho-Individualists, I regard them as fellow anarchist comrades. Full Shunyata 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So should a social anarchist critique of individualism and mutualism be posted? Full Shunyata 06:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

—== Modern mutualism, labor theory ==

I reverted an edit that associated 21st century mutualism (a la Carson) and the LTV with the 19th century, as if the emergence of the new mutualism was an anarchronism. Some hardcore Austrians may think that, but it's pretty clearly POV to put it in the introduction. Anyway, part of the importance of Carson's work is that it is not simply a defense of an old theory, but a fairly significant rethinking or representation. Libertatia 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I made the edit is becaause not all of the old individualists were mutualists. I don't think having a labor theory of value is sufficient to make you a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. What? The version before your edit stated a fact—that with Carson there had been a reemergence of mutualism. That's probably not exactly right, but it's close. Then you added the POV stuff about the LTV and the 19th century, which was misleading at best. Now, you put in this bit about the LTV, even though that's not a complete or fair characterization of what Carson is up to in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. And your defense is that "not all of the old individualists were mutualists"—which has nothing to do with any of this, and doesn't seem to have been claimed by anyone. Libertatia 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok you're right. My mistake. I got confused. There was nothing wrong with your edit. I guess I was trying to prevent the image that all of the old individualists were mutualists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Individualist anarchist" as self-identification

I just removed the claim that Tucker did not call himself an "individualist anarchist." A search of Liberty shows numerous uses of the terms individualist anarchist and individualist anarchism (in hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms). Tucker, Yarros, J. M. Lloyd, and C. L. Swartz all use the term as an identifier. Voltairine de Cleyre uses it to refer to Tucker. This seems pretty open-and-shut. Libertatia 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give any quotes from Tucker and Spooner calling themselves individualist anarchists?Anarcho-capitalism 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for Tucker, at least, as can anyone who bothers to do the research. Of course, as you made the claim, the burden of proof is obviously on you. Can you give any quotes that even suggest that they did not? What's the source for your assertion? Libertatia 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'm looking forward to the quote then. Tucker called himself an "Anarchistic socialist." The reason others started calling him an individualist anarchist is because socialism later came to mean collective ownership of the means of production, so that would be a misnomer. Spooner never even call himself an anarchist, much less an individualist one.Anarcho-capitalism 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You still don't have even the slightest clues how the terms were used. The individualist/socialist opposition is a more contemporary distinction. The contributors to Liberty were distinguishing themselves from Most and the communist anarchists. By "misnomer," I assume you mean some contradiction between "individualist" and "socialist," but that's just a product of your presentist reading. There is no contradiction. Libertatia 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a definite contradition if socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production, which is indeed how it is defined. That would be collectivism. We can't say today that Tucker was a socialist, because he was not, even though he called himself one. He was a socalist at the time, according to the definition at the time, because it didn't mean collective ownership of the means of production. But not when the meaning of the term changed. Then he was no longer a socialist. No one can define a term and then monopolize that term for all eternity. Meanings of words change. Today, socialism does not mean what Tucker used it to mean. So, we are lying if we say he was a socialist. Another example, is classical liberalism. It used to be considered a Left philosophy, but the meaning of Left changed. So it would be wrong to say classical liberals were leftists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not, under any circumstances, "lying" is we say he was a socialist. We may be saying something which is hard for people who imagine that their back-pocket college dictionary contains all truth will find hard to understand at first. In any event, you can't edit the entry on the basis of an unsourced assertion, supported by your choice of dictionary definitions, particularly when it has been demonstrated that your chosen definition of "socialism" is not accepted as the sole definition, even among some anarcho-capitalists. Libertatia 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion currently going on on the Socialism page about a correct definition, as the "collective control" is inaccurate for a broad church. Socialism is, at core, an economic concept based on bringing about a more egalitarian society by whatever measures. That's it. Anarchism of all real kinds is based on individual sovereignty. The collective only controls that which all of the members of the collective agree should be under their control. A commune is the same, it's the choice of the members. If a commune breaks up into its composite members, then the commune's property should be divided between the members as they agree (perhaps not absolutely equally, depending on the needs of the members). Thus, while individualists may disagree with the idea of a commune, that's fine, they could choose not to join one. Apart from the writings of theorists (which tend, by definition, to be strongly advocating an idea in opposition to others), there's no inconsistency between the various strands of anarchism once its accepted that any economic organisation is within their personal realm. Except, of course, with those who continue to advocate private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery exploitation, that is. Donnacha 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And the individualist anarchists support private ownership of the means of production and the buying and selling of labor (which you call wage slavery). They don't aim for egalitarian wealth distribution either, as this quote from Laurance Labadie clearly points out: "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."Anarcho-capitalism 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"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) It's flat out wrong to tell people that Tucker was a socialist. The meaning of the word has long changed.Anarcho-capitalism 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't just juggle the definitions until they come out your way. Libertatia 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. That's why I'm giving you a source. My whole point there is your definitions don't matter and my definitions don't matter. All that matters is what the definitions of the published scholars are. Tucker is not considered to be a socialist, because socialism today means collective ownership of the means of production. In fact, I've seen old definitions of socialism in old dictionaries, and anarcho-capitalists would be socialists as well under those definitions. I'll see if I can find one.Anarcho-capitalism 17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill called himself a Democratic Socialist. Still you would have a hard time on Wikipedia getting him categorized in Category:English socialists. Intangible 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mill was hardly of one mind about "socialism." The example doesn't prove much. Libertatia 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First things first. Anyone who has read much in Liberty knows that Tucker's style was somewhat detached, and so the smoking gun, "I am an individualist anarchist" statement is going to be hard to find. However, it is equally true that anyone who has read much in Liberty will know that the terms in question were widely used, and that the "On Picket Duty" column was chock full of defenses of "Individualist Anarchism" from critics and positive notices of explicitly "individualist anarchist" publications. On Dec 19, 1891, in one of the defenses, Tucker says, "Liberty remains what it always has been,—individualist, Anarchist, and Socialist." On July 16, 1892, Tucker, responding to an letter by Merlino, attacking individualist anarchism, with a long letter, which includes the following: "Socialism includes, not only Collectivism and Communism, but also that school of Individualist Anarchism which conceives liberty as a means of destroying usury and exploitation of labor. . . . I am as good a socialist as [Merlino], and therefore any discussion between us must be, not of socialist anarchism against individualist anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism." That seems pretty clear, particularly given the context. The same column includes this definition of "socialism," which is nice in that it makes clear that it is the power of accumulated capital that is opposed: "Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change of man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute." Libertatia 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Great. So, then Spooner is the problem. Spooner never even call himself an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooner is something of an outlier in lots of ways. But I haven't even looked at the online Spooner archive yet, for this stuff. I'll do it when I get a chance. Libertatia 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooner's obituary in the Boston Globe: "Though Mr. Spooner did not call himself an Anarchist, his political and financial views coincided more nearly with those of the Individualistic Anarchists than with those of any other school."Anarcho-capitalism 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes (although obits are not particularly reliable on those sorts of questions). Text search on the archive seems to confirm the claim. Libertatia 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar results on a couple of other searches. Actually, Spooner used "anarchy" at least once in the negative sense, in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, much like other abolitionists of his generation. Libertatia 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a definition of socialism quoted in an 1888 essay (George N. McLean's The Rise and Fall of Anarchy in America. First Edition. Chicago & Philadelphia: R.G. Badoux & Co., 1888. page 9) from Webster's Dictionary: "A theory of society which advocates a more precise, orderly and harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than that which has hitherto prevailed." So that's would make anarcho-capitalists socialists. That's what made Benjamin Tucker a socialist. But, socialism doesn't mean that anymore. It means as the modern Merriam Webster Dictionary says, "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." So, Tucker is not a socialist. He WAS a socialist, but ceased being one when the definition changed.Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen, the problem with your approach is that it appears to assume a series of agreed-upon definitions, which follow one another serially. So, "socialism" means this now, and then it means something else. But this is not at all accurate. The quotes above show that multiple senses already existed for "socialism" and "anarchism." The notion that Merriam-Webster is somehow a final arbiter of all of this is fairly inadequate. Libertatia 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The article doesn't say he's a socialist anyway. If someone adds that he called himself a socialist, we'd simply have to go in and note that he was not referring to collective ownership of the means of production as it is commonly defined today (because otherwise we would be misleading readers who use mainstream modern terminology).Anarcho-capitalism 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously it does matter in general, but I agree on the strategy of clarification (which I've been advocating right along). And I think that minimizing our resorts to the term "socialism" is helpful, as it is one of the worst cases of the dictionary definitions not lining up with the actual, internal or "technical" uses of the term. Benjamin Tucker IS a socialist by a current, but not mainstream definition of the term. You can see the same tendency to exclude the libertarian forms of socialism from dictionary definitions in the 19th and early 20th century that you see now, and you can see the same sorts of responses from self-identified libertarian socialists. You can also see the same personal and institutional connections between libertarian socialists and the broader socialist movements, the same conflicts, the same displays and failures of solidarity on various sides. Replace Tucker, Yarros, Westrup, Swartz and Lloyd with Spangler, Carson, Gambone, Long and Wilbur; replace Goldman, de Cleyre, Most, etc with McKay, Munson, Zerzan; replace A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles with the modern OED: the situation hasn't changed very much. Libertatia 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin anti-capitalist?

Is it true that James J. Martin was an anti-capitalist? Libertatia 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Martin is in their in the first place. He's not a theorist is he? He's an historian.Anarcho-capitalism 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, historian's can have their agendas as well, and Martin's really seems to be promoting individualist anarchism as prot-egoism. But Martin himself recalls a waning interest in economic matters, in his introduction to Laurance Labadie's essays: "Perhaps I became too much of a 'Stirnerite' for Laurance. He never came to terms with Tucker's abandonment of economic and financial analysis for Stirner, and mainly tried to treat the situation as one in which Tucker's views and enthusiasms between 1881 and 1901 were all that one needed to go on. My similar waning interest in economic and money theory changed much of the nature of our communications. . ." ("We Never Called Him "Larry.") Libertatia 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Protection Filter?

Hey what's wrong with this article? For any edit I try to make it brings up a page about a "Spam Protection Filter" and doesn't allow me to make an edit. Anyone else have this problem?Anarcho-capitalism 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Libertatia 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange.Anarcho-capitalism 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that it said this text is triggering it: "http://www. b. 150m. com." I guess I'm infected with some kind of spyware. Interesting, it's an individualist anarchist website.Anarcho-capitalism 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Libertatia, what do you mean "Nope"? You haven't tried to save an edit since I mentioned this. There have been no edits since the 8th. I suspect that it's not just me and that no one can edit this article.Anarcho-capitalism 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant "Nope." I had saved unchanged text, and just did that again, and then saved a version minus one word. It does look like it might be affecting just you. It's coming up at the "save page" stage? Libertatia 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you edited the Proudhon section. I just tried as was able to do that as well. So, it looks like it's just the intro that can't be edited. See if you can edit the intro.Anarcho-capitalism 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As a temporary fix, I have put a partial citation of the Rothbard article in, in place of the hotlink. If we get a full citation in, that should maintain the reference. We can also mention in the note that it is available online if that seems appropriate. Frees the page for now. Libertatia 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That works, thanks.Anarcho-capitalism 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "education in marginal utility"

The claim that the anarchists of the Liberty group lacked knowledge of marginal utility theory is simply false. Hugo Bilgram and J Greevz Fisher debated the subject in 1894-5, and F. D. Tandy addressed it in his work in 1896. Perhaps by "education" the book-reviewer simply means they didn't adopt his preferred economic model, but it is more likely, as the quote is from a book review, that he is simply incorrect. I've removed the criticism for the time being. Libertatia 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tucker never mentions the theory of marginal utility. It's pretty obvious that he wasn't knowledgeable in it and never expressed any awareness of it. If he was, he was certainly smart enough to discard the labor theory of value, which he certainly would have. There are other sources. Wendy McElroy also points out that they weren't familiar with marginal utility. That's where the reviewer is getting that information actually, most likely.Anarcho-capitalism 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tucker certainly published debates explicitly about the theory of marginal utility. They are right there, in Liberty, in 1894-5, and Tucker included a notice of Tandy's discussion of the issue, in Liberty as well, in 1896. The claim appears to be false. Libertatia 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not confusing the subjective theory of value with the theory of marginal utility are you? They're two different things. The STV is not able to explain prices. Marginal utility is.Anarcho-capitalism 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Marginal utility"—referenced explicitly as (surprise!) "the theory of marginal utility." It was pretty well debated in radical circles before the turn of the century. Debates took place in Liberty. Henry George responded in one of his books. Etc. Libertatia 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Marginal utility is same thing as theory of marginal utility. Yes. I don't understand what point you're trying to make there. But the subjective theory of value is not the same as the marginal utility theory of value. Do you have a source of it being debated? Got any quotes? That's really hard to believe. If so, that's great, because that would be the process of converting to anarcho-capitalism, which is the rejection of the labor theory of value.Anarcho-capitalism 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This source here says about George, "Since the very basis of the Austrian concept of value is subjective, it is apparent that George's understanding of value paralleled theirs. However, he either did not understand or did not appreciate the importance of marginal utility, a concept of which Menger was one of the original propounders" [14] So, who was it that you are saying understood marginal utility?Anarcho-capitalism 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. You have a partisan source claiming that a rejection of marginal utility theory was—had to be—based in a lack of understanding. You could undoubtedly find geolibertarian sources that claimed just the opposite. George certainly thought he understood the theory, and his published thoughts on the matter are just as citable, for better or worse, as published claims to the contrary. The question of whether or not the Liberty group "had an education" in the subject is a little simpler. Based on what he published, we know he was well-exposed to the theory. Btw, the claim that "Tucker never mentions the theory of marginal utility" is pure puffery. It may not even be true of his writings in Liberty, but, in any event, Tucker's writings and correspondence are still surfacing. Why make claims that imply more knowledge than any of us here have? Libertatia 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That "partisan source" was from a peer-reviewed journal, which is the most acceptable kind of source on Wikipedia. You may not agree with it. But that's not what Wikipedia is about. It's not necessarily about the truth, but simply a matter of consolidating all the opinion of what the truth is that is out there, and dumping that information on Wikipedia. Anyway, so far you haven't produced a source saying otherwise. You shouldn't delete a sourced item just because you disagree with what the source says. You haven't even produced any evidence that Tucker was even aware of the marginal utility theory of value.Anarcho-capitalism 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're going to call me a liar, because I haven't scanned a Liberty article or two for you in the hour or so we've been debating this? Get real. You're citing a book review, for crying out loud. Anyway. Peer-reviewed journals are full of partisan sources, and this is just fine, but scholars make some attempt to acknowledge bias and deal with it. Libertatia 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would I call you a liar? Get real. I just suspect that you're wrong and are confusing subjective theory of value with marginal utility of value.Anarcho-capitalism 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The exact phrase used by Bilgram, as I have now had to say several times, is "marginal utility." (Liberty, Jan 12, 1895, p. 5; Mar 9, 1895, p. 5) In "On Picket Duty," May 19, 1894 (p.1), Tucker quotes a passage relating to "marginal or final degree of utility." And "An Interesting Announcement" (Mar 7, 1896, p. 6, probably by Tucker) concerns Tandy's book, which deals with, among other things, "the marginal utility theory of Boehm-Bawerk." The debate with J Greevz Fisher, in which Tucker was first respondent, covers several years, but the citations above are the most obvious "evidence." Libertatia 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was aware of marginal utility theory, then. I'll look more into it. But, the statement by the economist that was sourced was that he didn't understand it, not that he wasn't aware of it.Anarcho-capitalism 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact claim is that they "lacked an education" in the theory. Unless there is more to the criticism, I think it is too uncertain to stand scrutiny. Libertatia 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If he didn't understand it then he lacked an education in it. Same difference. And, that came from an economist. And it was in a peer-reviewed journal. It's a fine source.Anarcho-capitalism 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that he eventually threw his hands and said that that acquisition of property by might is right. I doubt that he subscribed to any theory of value by that time. He was probably very confused at that point. Above all, an egoist would reject the labor theory of value because it's a "just price" theory. An egoist would deny that there is a just price for labor.Anarcho-capitalism 21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. Sorry. You're now interpreting the phrase "lacked an education," and you are once again attributing "confusion" to anyone who isn't a member of your particular economic religion. That's a WikiNoNo. And the article is a book review, which certainly does not get peer-reviewed in the same way an article would. And we can deal with Tucker's development in the appropriate places. Libertatia 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a legitimate source. The guy is an economist. I'm going to put it back in. If you want to add some kind of rebuttal go ahead. The most you can maybe do is say that Tucker was aware of marginal utility theory, but you can't claim he understood it.Anarcho-capitalism 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, marginal utililty theory isnt a "religion." It in no way says what prices SHOULD be. It's just a theory of why X has one price and Y has another - because they have different marginal utilites. If you want "religious" economics, the labor theory of value as advocated by Tucker and others is what is religious. It says there is a right and wrong price of goods and services. Of course, when Tucker turned egoist, he had to have rejected it.Anarcho-capitalism 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, apparently. I meant that your treatment of economic issues has all the dogmatic and "revealed" character of a religion. For the record, although I'm not a Warrenite, it doesn't seem any more dogmatic to believe that cost should be the limit of price than to say that things are worth what they bring. Where we differentiate social science from ideology is in the whys and wherefores. Libertatia 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Common mistake you're making. In subjective theory of value and marginal utility of value, "value" is referring to "price," - not "worth." It doesn't say one thing is worth more than another, at all. It theorizes that prices of goods and services vary according to their marginal utilities - not according to labor. It's totally benign. All these theories of value do is attempt to explain why one thing has a different price than another. The labor theory of value, on the other hand, can take two forms. In the most basic form, as conceived by Ricardo and Smith, it's just like the marginal theory in that it seeks to explain why one thing has a higher price than another. Again, "value" here simply refers to price. The old theorists thought that maybe prices of objects differed because the amount of labor behind them was different (which they weren't convinced of themselves). But, there is another form of the labor theory, which is the normative form. It's a "just price theory." It says that prices ought to correspond to labor exerted - that labor is somehow being stolen from someone if prices don't correspond to labor - that exploitation is taking place. That's the tangent that Marx, Warren, Proudhon, and Tucker take. As Tucker said, the extension of the basic labor theory of value "seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew." The 19th century individualists accepted that prices are proportion to labor in a market economy as theorized by Ricardo and Smith, and then from that took a moral stance. Tucker thought that since the market was not totally free that therefore the natural match-up between labor and prices was being thwarted. Therefore, the state ought to stop using coercion to prevent competition. Anarcho-capitalists don't agree with the labor theory of value, so they certainly don't see anything at all wrong with prices not matching up with labor. Nobody is being exploited because he's not being paid according to how much labor he exerted. There's no such thing as a just price. The reason to oppose the state is not that it prevents a match-up between labor and prices. That wouldn't happen anyway in a free market. In a free market, prices of goods and services align with their marginal utilities. The reason to oppose the state is that it literally steals the product of labor.Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point was about dogmatism. And, ultimately, the rejection of the possibility of a "just price" is a judgment of much the same character as insistence on one. The rest of your "lecture" here is a tissue of inconsistencies. Libertatia 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary. It is not exactly a "rejection" of a just price, in the way you mean it, but agnosticism. If no reason has been found to believe in a just price, then the rational thing to do is to refraining from believing that there is one. Until the anachronistic labor theorists can prove their assertions, I'll remain an anarcho-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalism 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this page needs a massive overhaul, this like much of the anarchist pages here have been sabotaged by anarcho-capitalists, in the anarchist movement individual anarchists refer to the american individual anarchists like Tucker, who were basically Mutualists. Murray Rothbard and anarcho-capitalists are not individual anarchists in the real sense.

Who is "the anarchist movement"? I suspect that at the outset you exclude anarcho-capitalists from the "anarchist movement," therefore your statement becomes circular.Anarcho-capitalism 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)