Talk:Anarchism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Page one 2 NPOV 3 Banner suggestion to merge with minarchism 4 Requested move 4.1 Discussion 4.2 Discision 5 Max's deletion 6 Individualists anarchists and anarcho-capitalists 7 overlap with Anarchism in the English tradition 8 The first American anarchist? 9 Max's deletions 10 No original research 11 Cite sources 12 Neutral point of view 13 RJII's removal of tags 14 19th century definition of socialism 15 European influences 15.1 Jefferson, antifederalists, and property 16 Comparison of Property Systems 17 Unsourced claims 18 Undue weight 19 Individualism 20 As a political, social and cultural movement 21 Rothbard 22 CraP 23 Questions 24 Haymarket 25 Warren's influences and other historical holes 26 American individualist anarchism 27 Rothbard and McElroy 28 Cost the limit of price

[edit] Page one

I'm not going to attempt to edit this article because RJ had shown a history of edit-war behivior, proposes that wikipedia is a perpetual edit war, refuses to compromise or join in on any attempts to reach consensus (indeed mocks them), and pushes he POV regardless of the cited facts presented to him. As such, I will simply provide evidence and tag this with NPOV:

1) The follow claim is given no source and is highly POV, "While individual anarchists of the anti-capitalist tradition are still active today, most individualist anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists"

Not only is is questionable that anarcho-capitalists are individualists, but there is no evidence that "most" individualist anarchists consider themselves anarcho-capitalists (or even that most consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of individualism).

It is false that there is no source provided. The link to it is right there at the end of the sentence. It says "This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as "true" anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as "anarcho-capitalists", whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power." RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This source does not demonstrate its own claim, it merely makes it. As such, the article should list it as "so and so says" rather than fact. Further, its inappropriate for this opinion to shape the article itself and be so prominent, it should be mentioned further down. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

2) Wendy McElroy is listed as an individualist anarchist. This is POV, at most she should be listed as considering herself an individualist given that she actively rejects much of their tradition.

She is an individualist anarchist. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, she isn't. She calls herself an individualist anarchist, while rejecting much of their tradition. Kev 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes she is. She's just not a traditional one. RJII 16:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a violation of NPOV to call her an individualist when some people believe she is not. It is all the more a violation when all the founders of individualism would have not considered her one. Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, find a source that says she's not an individualist anarchist then. RJII 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? Yes [[1]]Kev 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

3) There is almost NO new information in this article not already covered extensively in the individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalist, and individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. It is, in fact, merely a POV fork being used by RJ to stress those particular views of the individualists he wants to emphasize and repeat them over and over across several articles.

This is not true. The individualist anarchist article gives the impression that individualist anarchists support private property. That's not universally true unless you're talking about American anarchists. There are enough articles out there about American individualist anarchism as being unique that it deserves its own article. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a sentence or two indicating the fact that not all individualists support private property is sufficient, whereas an entire article created solely with the purpose of hammering this fact into the reader is a bit of a soap-box. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What American individualist anarchist doesn't support private property? Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that an American individualist anarchist doesn't support private property, I said that this distinction could as easily be indicated by one or two sentences in the individualist article. All that you have done in this article is copy and paste sections from other articles to repeat what has already been said. Kev 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies include:

1) "Lysander Spooner is an individualist anarchist who apparently worked without association with the other individualists of the time, but came to approximately the same conclusions."

Lysander Spooner was in fact in association with individualists like Tucker. "...Lysander Spooner, an independent radical whose political and economic writings paralleled those of the better known group for many years. Regardless of the use made of his works, Spooner remained apart from the individualists except for brief instances of association during his later life..." -James J, Martin, Men against the State. I'll modify it to say "brief instances." RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

2) Repeatedly individualist anarchists are refered to as having "supported private property" even with such adjectives as "strongly". However, no referance at all is made to the distinctions between normative private property and possession. RJ is well aware of these distinctions from his edits on other pages, but is purposefully leaving them out to create the false impression that the property supported by the individualists is the same as that supported by other ideologies.

There is absolutely no difference in regard to the private property in the produce of labor that is supported by other ideologies. Private property is that which is rightfully possessed by an individual and which he has absolute dominion over. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

When the individualists rejected rent from private property, interest from private property, and some rejected wage entailed from private ownership of the means of production, I would say that constitutes something more than "absolutely no difference" in their conception of private property from that of other ideologies. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Man, don't you get it yet? Unworked land is not private property, for individualists. It's illegitimately-secured material. Private property is the produce of labor ..the classical liberal conception --that which an individual mixes with his labor is his property. Individualists anarchists believe in private property, that is, they believe in the liberty of an individual to possess the produce of his labor and have absolute dominion over it. This has nothing to do with land. What are you talking about when you say "some rejected wage entailed from private ownership of the means of production"? Are you talking about land? RJII 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the fact that unused land is not legitimate private property to individualist anarchists. I'm also aware of the fact that it is legitimate private property as private property is commonly refered to, thus when you say they STRONGLY advocated private property, and only except unused land in elipses, it creates a false impression. And no, I am not talking about land when I said that they rejected wage from private ownership of the means of production, I am talking about their advocacy of interest free banking, the absence of which they decried given the fact that the version of private property they supported was far more limited than what is commonly refered to and was limited in more ways than just "raw land", as you constantly insert into articles. Kev 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. Do you? "rejected wage from private ownership of the means of production"?? is that a typo? Are you saying that they oppose private ownership of the means of production? If so, you're wrong. It's only land that one does not work or occupy where private ownership is opposed. I don't understand why you're bringing up banking. Don't you realize that a printing press would be used to print currency? That's a means of production. What are you trying to say? RJII 16:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No RJ, I am saying that they reject wage profit earned as a result of the private ownership of the means of production. If you can't figure out what that means, I guess you will just remain confused. Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No shit that they reject profit, period. What's your point? RJII 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There rejection of profit is one of several limits they place on legitimate property use, thus the point that the form of property they support and advocate is limited relative to normative property relations, and beyond the single factor of unused land. Kev 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the philosophy. The limitation is not on how property may be used, but on what is allowable as property. If it's private property, dominion over it is absolute --it's not a "limited form" of private property, as you like to say. RJII 00:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

3) Thoreau is listed as an individualist anarchist. While this may or may not have been the case, he never refered to himself as such, and this fact should be noted, especially since he was a contemporary of the individualists anarchists to it is quite possible that he knew of their existence. Kev 06:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Which of these guys did call themselves "individualist anarchists."? What makes them individualist anarchists are their philosophy. These guys are widely regarded as being individualist anarchists. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Thoreau did not refer to himself as an anarchist, despite the fact that he was a contemporary of theirs. It is thus historical revisionism to claim that he is without indicating that this is a belief, rather than a fact. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. That can be fixed. I'll just delete Thoreau. But it's pretty obvious when a guy says that he is in favors the lack of all government that he's an anarchist. RJII 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Then it would have been very easy for him to describe himself as such. If he didn't, perhaps he felt there was something about anarchism that did not fit with his ideals. That was his call to make, not yours. Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to call yourself an anarchist to be an anarchist. What the hell kind of reasoning is that? It's your philosophy of opposing the existence of government that makes you an anarchist. Did William Godwin call himself an anarchist? Did Max Stirner call himself an anarchist? Do you deny they're anarchists too? RJII 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what makes all your edits so POV RJ. You fail to even recognise the undeniable fact that many people today and throughout history believe that anarchism means more than simply anti-statism. Some of those people (like Sam Spade), believe it includes a number of undesirable things, while others (like Kropotkin) believe that it includes a number of desirable things. It is POV for you to write an article based on your personal view of what is and what is not anarchist. If Thoreau chose not to call himself an anarchist, perhaps it was because he felt there were other aspects besides anti-statism to the anarchist tradition that he did not identify with. Historical revisionism (like you have been consistently doing with Warren, for example) doesn't help anyone. And yes, I do deny that Stirner and Godwin are anarchists. Stirner because he denied it himself, Godwin because he predated the origin of the term as a self-description. That does not mean they are not generally considered anarchism, nor that their philosophies are not for the most part parallel to anarchism, it simply means they are not anarchists any more than Lao Tzu was. Kev 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! So, to be an anarchist you have to call yourself an anarchist. But, then when Wendy McElroy calls herself an anarchist you say she's not. Which is it?

Stop putting words in my mouth. Just because you need to distort what other people say in order to fit your tiny categories does not mean that I conform to your skewed reality. I did not say that to be an anarchist you have to call yourself an anarchist. I am saying that for wikipedia to neutrally present someone as an anarchist, given that the definition of anarchism is so contested, requires that they believe it themselves. As for McElroy, self-description as an anarchists is a necessary condition to being refered to as an anarchists, but not a sufficient one. If it was then the definition of anarchism would not only be contested, it would be non-existent. Kev 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But you're wrong. One doesn't have to call themselves an anarchist to be one. Does one have to call themselves a human to be one? You've got some really screwed up philosophy. A thing is what it is simply by virtue of it being that thing. One can say he is whatever he wants to say he is, but the fact remains that he is what he is. RJII 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are purposefully misrepresenting me. I did not say that someone has to call themselves an anarchists in order to be one. In fact, I JUST told you that I didn't say it, so you clearly are either unable to read, unable to understand, or simply playing games. If its the first, learn, if its the second, I'm truly sorry, if its the third, go fuck off. Kev 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you did say that someone has to call themselves an anarchist in order to be one: "self-description as an anarchists is a necessary condition to being refered to as an anarchists, but not a sufficient one." There you have it. That's obviously your position. If someone doesn't call himself an anarchist then he can't be one, according to you. You're wrong. What makes someone an anarchist is their philosophy. RJII 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You have intentionally taken my words out of context in order to misrepresent them. As I said above, I do not believe that this is a general principle. I believe that in the specific case of a contested term in the context of an encyclopedia with a neutral POV policy it would be non-neutral to present someone who did not consider themselves to be an anarchist as one, as it would imply support of a particular definition of anarchism over and above all the rest, thus breaking any attempt to remain neutral in regards to the issue of the definition of anarchism. But I already made this very clear. If you insist on being intellectuall dishonest and representing what I say apart from the context of everything I have said, then I have no choice but to ignore your appeals. Kev 07:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Does your philosophy make you an anarchist or does calling yourself make you one? Obviously, the philosophy is what's important.

Of course, but as always you go for a false dichotomy. My answer to your false either/or is "both". And I agree with your second sentence, but that doesn't mean I ignore the other evidence. Kev 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're on your own claiming that Godwin is not an anarchist. Don't push your POV in these articles. If you find a source saying that Godwin or the others are not anarchists, then fine. But until then, keep it to yourself. RJII 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, many people believe that Godwin was a proto-anarchist. But that is beside the point. The burden of proof is on you to prove the positive assertion that Godwin is an anarchist, not on me to prove the negative assertion that he isn't. If you can find people saying that he is an anarchist, that is sufficient to claim that some people consider him an anarchist. If you can find many such people, that is sufficient to say that many consider him an anarchist. If everyone you find considers him such, that is sufficient to say that he is considered such (which is precisely what the Warren article said about Warren before you started butchering it). If he did not consider himself an anarchist, it is factually incorrect to call him one, just as it would be wrong to trot over the the Lao Tzu article and state definitively that he was an anarchist just because a large number of people consider him to have been one and there is no evidence in existence of anyone claiming that he wasn't one, just as it would be wrong to edit the Jesus Christ article stating prominently that he was an anarchist just because the christian anarchists believe he was one and no one can dig up evidence of someone explicitly saying otherwise. The burden of proof is basic logic RJ, learn it before you demand evidence from me.

But hey RJ, I like your logic. I think I'm going to head over to the Rothbard article and state that he was a motherfucker. Not only does he fit the definition, but I can cite people who have refered to him as such, and I'm willing to bet you won't be able to find any evidence of someone saying that he wasn't a motherfucker. Gee, this is fun. No... wait, operating under your standards is just lame. Kev 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're freaking out over nothing. RJII 14:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll note your personal opinion, for however much I think it is worth. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

RJII - Your portrayal of individualist anarchism is TOTALLY skewd (as pointed out above) towards pro-capitalist, 19th cent libertarians. Please leave the NPOV banner. -max rspct 18:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

19th century libertarians were AGAINST capitalism --against profit. These anti-capitalist libertarians are what this article is mainly about. There is only a small section on pro-capitalist anarchism --the anarcho-capitalism section. Your objection is incoherent. RJII 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-capitalist libertarians?? Oh come off it -" Private property rights includes a right to own the means of production (capital)," -max rspct 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

By most modern definitions of capitalism, it includes profiting. If there is no profit involved it's not capitalism. It's mutualism. If you want to say mutualism is the same thing as capitalism, fine, but individualist anarchism still EXISTS. I don't understand what your complaint is. You want to the article to be deleted so we can all pretend that there is no such thing? RJII 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have already given the reason above. The article is FULL of POV RJ. max rspct 13:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's start going through it then. Point out a statement that is POV and we'll fix it if it truly is. If you can't point anything out, you shouldn't be taken seriously. RJII 13:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

For a start "William B. Greene did not become a full-fledged anarchists until late in life" . I do not always have the time (unlike people like yourself i am neither retired nor paid to inhabit contoversial pages like this one) so you will have to suffer the banner and bear with me. -max rspct 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"[Greene's] life touched the radical movement with intensity only at intervals, and his conversion to full-fledged anarchist beliefs occupied only the last ten years of his life, despite an intimate acquaintanceship of a full three decades." (Men Against the State: Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908 by James J. Martin).

Next? RJII 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatddya mean? Fully-fledged anarchist beliefs? Is this right-wing libertarian (your "individualist anarchists"/anarcho-capitalists) or anarchist as in against social hierachy/capitalism? I note that the author of the book on WB Greene et al is an evangelical revisionist associated with the Institute for Historical Review (neo-nazi Holocaust denial). -max rspct 13:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course Greene was opposed to capitalism ..like the rest of the classical individualist anarchists. The sentence is just pointing out that it's only in the last 10 years of his life that his writings were explicitly anarchist (most people are probably not anarchists for the entire length of their lives). Is it that you don't think he was ever an anarchist? This statement by him in Mutual Banking is certainly anarchist: "Mutualism operates, by its very nature, to render political government, founded on arbitrary force, superfluous." By the way, that Martin book was written in 1953, so it's hardly "revisionist." It's considered a classic in the subject of individualist anarchism. Need a few more sources? "Individualist and mutualist anarchists like William Greene [Mutual Banking], Benjamin Tucker [Instead of a Book), and J. B. Robertson [The Economics of Liberty] viewed the money monopoly as central to the capitalist system of privilege." -(The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand by Kevin A. Carson). "Tucker met the anarchists Josiah Warren and William B. Greene in 1872 at a meeting of the New England Labor Reform League" [2] "The American anarchist, William Batchelder Greene recalled that he joined the order while overseas, studying the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and other French revolutionaries." [3] Dude, Greene is widely known as a being anarchist. RJII 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banner suggestion to merge with minarchism

Max, are you out of your mind? Individualist anarchists are not minarchists. RJII 13:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Robert Nozick is on the minarchism page - Is he not an American individualist anarchist? Perhaps it should be merged with Anarcho-capitalism then? It's all part of pro-capitalist liberarianism...

This from the Anarcho-capitalism article - "Its grounding in liberalism is demonstrated by the assertion of many anarcho-capitalists that the first anarcho-capitalist was Gustave de Molinari, who argued for a free market and against a state monopoly on force" If thats your definition of Anarcho-C.. then it's almost synomynous (spellin?) with American individualist anarchism.

"..Likewise, Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists referred to "capitalism" they "meant state capitalism, the alliance of government and business."[24] This is something that anarcho-capitalists also oppose." (anarcho-capitalism article)

Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Wendy McElroy, refer to themselves simply as "individualist anarchists," however the term is usually used in reference to the classical individualists. All the radical American individualists oppose the initiation of coercion and fraud, believing that force should be reserved for defense. (American individualist anarchism article)

Is there that much of a distiction? Really it's all just right-wing libertarianism. The Anarchism tag is on both articles...but really, Anarcho-capitalism is the only living (well at least in academia), contemporary philosophy as is indicated in the Libertarianism template. Actually, I would be more than happy to rename THIS article something like "Early American libertarianism". Does that whet yer palate? -max rspct 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not all libertarians are anarchists, so no. Individualist anarchism is real and well-recognized. The distinction between classical individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (which is a newer form of individualist anarchism) is that the latter do not adhere to the labor theory of value. So, unlike the original radical individualists they don't oppose profiting from capital (capitalism). RJII 22:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you're going to put that vote for move notice on the article, you need to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. RJII 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not notably anarchist! The 'individualist anarchists' are only pro-capitalist ones. They really are right-wing libertarians (the name given to this bunch years ago when it was obvious they weren't anarchists) The requested move has been requested. -max rspct 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course they are notably anarchist. I've never heard of anyone disputing that other than you. "Right libertarian" and "right anarchism" applies to anarcho-capitalism. Classical individualist anarchism is not typically seen as "right anarchism" since it opposes profiting from capital (aka capitalism). Though, it's not quite left-anarchism either, becuase it supports private property. RJII 19:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

American individualist anarchism → Early American libertarianism – Reasons: Creator of the page has written most of it.. and keeps creating new POV riddled pages when he can't get his edits accepted by other editors within other pages ..eg. Anarchism; Hence the Anarchist title misleading/dubious. Subjects are well within right-wing libertarianism and are pro-capitalist by orientation (not especially notable but more importantly not connected in any way with the 20th/21th century anarchist philosophy and movement). -max rspct 14:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. Individualist anarchism is a well-recognized anarchist school of thought. And, it's not merely "Early American" but continues to this day. It would make no sense at all to move it to such a title. "Max rspct" is apparently on a POV mission to monopolize the term "anarchism" to only include communist-type anarchism. RJII 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support --harrismw 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

[edit] Discision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max's deletion

Max, you deleted the statement: "Though most of these individualist oppose titles to unused land, as a general rule, they oppose violent expropriation. Rather, they prefer to educate the populace on their labor theory of value and effect evolutionary change." This is well-known. If you disagree, what individualist anarchist favors violent expropriation of unused land? RJII 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Individualists anarchists and anarcho-capitalists

I previously removed this statement because it was not supported by the text, "While individual anarchists of the anti-capitalist tradition are still active today, most individualist anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists according to Keith Preston Capitalism versus Free Enterprise."

In the text Preston does not state that most individualist anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. Rather, he states that most free market anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. This is a very different statement, as all it indicates is that there aren't very many individualists today.

The text goes on to extrapolate more information not found in the source material, "Contemporary individualists in the anti-capitalism tradition, such as Joe Peacott, hold that anarcho-capitalism is a non-traditional form of individualist anarchism [4] "

Joe Peacott does not say this in the article, what he does say is that people who are anarcho-capitalists call themselves individualist anarchists, "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." In fact, in other texts he is much more clear on this point, stating explicitly that individualist anarchism is anti-capitalist and contrasting it to anarcho-capitalism, "At the opposite end of the anarchist spectrum are the anarchist capitalists, who envision a form of capitalism without the state, which would bear little resemblance to the economic system which goes by the same name today...There is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists" [5]

Further, while someone went out of their way to squeeze the very few instances of individualists and other anarchists being ambiguous on these points, they did nothing to give the overwhelming evidence that most anarchists of all varieties believe that individualism is anti-capitalist. So I will make all this clear in the text. Revkat 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Preston, he indeed says the most free-market anarchists today refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. Maybe you're not realizing that the classical individualist anarchists were free-market anarchists. He's saying that most free-market anarchists today are anarcho-capitalists, rather than anti-capitalist free-market anarchists. Free-market anarchists and individualist anarchists are the same thing in this context. Regarding Peacott, maybe you missed this: "For instance, the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists." Obviously he's saying that they're individualist anarchists. RJII 22:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

He is saying that they refer to themselves and individualists. In another article, he makes it very explicit that individualists are anti-capitalist and contrasted with anarcho-capitalists, as the quote I already gave demonstrates. As for Preston, yes he is saying that most market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, that does not in any way entail that most individualists are anarcho-capitalists, only that there are more anarcho-capitalists today than there are individualists. Again, you are adding a lot of interpretation that is unsupported, and at times even contradicted, by the text. 01:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Peacott indeed says that anarcho-capitalists are individualists: "the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists." Dispute it all you want ..it's as plain as day. As far as Preston, you're ignoring that he's using individualist anarchism and free market anarchism interchangeably: "This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as "true" anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as "anarcho-capitalists", whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power." Everybody knows that anarcho-capitalists are individualists --they're certainly not collectivists! RJII 03:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Peacott also says that individualist anarchists reject capitalism, "There is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists" Dispute it all you want... its as plain as day. As for Preston, he is not using the terms interchangably, he never indicates that he is, and you have obviously run out of evidence. Your claim seems to be supported only by your assumptions, until you have actual evidence to back your claim beyond "anarcho-capitalists are individualists" because "everybody knows that" you are out of luck. It is strange that "everybody knows" this when Tucker didn't know it, Larry Gambone, Peter Sabatini, Iain McKay and Daniel Burton all seem to think it isn't true, and your best evidence that it is gives no such indication other than your own extrapolations. If anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists, why are all those individualists railing against capitalists all the time? Gee, they must be pretty confused. You should set them straight right away. First step, give some evidence of this undeniable fact. Revkat 06:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How convenient for you to leave out the last part of second sentence out of the quote from Peacott above. Let's look at the whole sentence: "There is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists, who originated in the United States in the 1800s." It's clear he's talking about the original individualists and those who follow in that tradition. And, to answer your question "Why are all those individualists railing against capitalists all the time?" Because they were opposed to government-backed monopoly on credit and land (their definition of capitalism). Anarcho-capitalists are NOT collectivists. They're individualists who support profit making. Now, whether they're actually anarchists is where some debate could come in, but whether they are individualists is indisputable and is taken from granted by modern individualists in the classical tradition. Gambone explains the definitional issue. By the classical anarchist definition, anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism. Contemporary individualists in the 19th century tradition generally recognize that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and all, of course, accept without question that they're individualists. I know of none that think they're collectivists. RJII 14:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course RJ, I'm trying to cover up the fact that the individualists have been around for more than 100 years. I'm sneaky that way. Your interpretation that he is "only" talking about the individualists is not merited from the text, he is simply explaining when they originated, not implying that there is some "other" group of individualists who originated at another time.

I agree with you that anarcho-capitalists are not collectivists. This does not make them individualist anarchists, a tradition which rejects capitalism (at least according to the copious amounts of evidence I've supplied so far, in contrast to the one or two ambiguous quotes you dug up while at the same time ignoring statements by those same authors that contradicted your point). And I agree with who wholly, the question is whether or not they are anarchists, but you keep conflating the term "individualist" with "individualist anarchist" as though the two are synonymous, but we both know they are not. Now if there are so many contemporary individualists who believe that anarcho-capitalism is both anarchist and individualist, then why do they all say so explicitly that individualism is anti-capitalist? Really, you are only going around in circles here, you know the evidence does not support your viewpoint, and are only hoping to convince me by extrapolation. Sorry, the text reads differently, and can most certainly be interpreted differently then the round-about approach you are taking. Revkat 15:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I already answered that question. By capitalism, the classical individualists mean government-backed privilege for capital. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism as the classical individualists define it. Gambone explains this. RJII 15:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] overlap with Anarchism in the English tradition

There's overlap between these two articles American individualist anarchism. Maybe they should be restructured/merged.

Not sure how to handle that. For now, I'll put in a link to that article. RJII 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a merging of the two articles, together with an explicit acknowledgement that the category of "individualist anarchist" is partially anachronistic (in the sense that you'll be hard put to find anyone calling themselves an individualist anarchist prior to the 1870s) and hotly contested. NPOV can be maintained, I think, by acknowledging that the label "individualist anarchist" has always covered over a certain number of key differences, which can then be laid out clearly in the sub-sections. To lump Greene's explicitly Christian mutualism with Warren's individual sovereigntyism and the projects of Proudhon is both historically inaccurate and takes no account of the testimonies of the various early theorists. To begin with the opposition of individualist anarchism to "collectivism" can't help but be presentist and violate the NPOV rule, unless you can clarify your starting points and then deal adequately with the history. Again, focusing on Greene, his occasionally strong statements against "socialism" don't change the fact that he never seems to have abandoned the assumption, derived from Pierre Leroux's work, that human beings were unable to exercise the "holy" work of individual development without taking care of their connections to the "collective Adam."

If there's interest in tackling the merger in a historical fashion, taking account of contests over the meaning and content of the tradition, I would be happy to collaborate. Libertatia 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I [don't?] think know what you mean by a "lumping together." There is nothing wrong with having an article devoted to the American individualists. It doesn't mean they agree on everything. As long as you discuss the philosophy of each one, what is the problem? RJII 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing inherently "wrong" with a separate article for the Americans. There is also nothing wrong with discussing folks who wouldn't have thought of themselves as "individualist anarchists" in an article on that topic as long as it's clear what is being described and in what (presentist) terms it is being described. All of us doing historical research in this area have inherited arguably deceptive categories and analyses. I have an enormous respect for James Martin's work. (He was, by the way, explicitly a "revisionist" in the Harry Elmer Barnes tradition.) But Men Against the State probably wouldn't stand a Wikipedia NPOV examination for very long. He does, in fact, "lump together" mutualists, individual sovereigntyists, etc as precursors to the egoist individualism that is his primary, partisan concern.

I would think that in a case like this a primary criteria for deciding how many and what kinds of articles are developed would be the efficient presentation of clear facts in well-defined contexts. My personal sense, based on my researches, is that the differences between American individualist anarchists and other individualist anarchists are not greater than the differences between American individualist anarchists. The category of individualist anarchist itself seems to be presentist, and therefore to need some explicit explanation in the article regarding its origins and importance. It seems like we can achieve a clear, NPOV article more efficiently by combining the American and English discussions. Libertatia 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first American anarchist?

The caption of the picture at the top of the page says "Josiah Warren is the first American anarchist". Any way to prove this? Let's suppose that a billionth of a second before the Declaration of Independence was enacted, a cobbler in Boston decided that government was unnessecary. Wouldn't that guy be the first American anarchist?

Ok, so he's the first known American anarchist then. RJII 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, he is known as the first American anarchist, thanks in large part to Bailie's book of the same name. Until there is some clarification of the article's criteria for inclusion, it's hard to know how to tackle this. Libertatia 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a PDF of Bailie's book here. Enjoy!

[edit] Max's deletions

Can you explain your deletions? Let's go through them one at a time.

• "American individualist anarchism includes strong advocacy of private property and a competitive free market economy. It is sometimes called market anarchism"

calling all American individualist anarchists as pro-private property is inaccurate and a generalisation. Even calling Tucker's philosophy is contentious/debatable - max rspct leave a message 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous claim. Anyone moderately familiar with labor/value individualist anarchism knows that they support private property. It's essential to their philosophy. Maybe you don't know what private property is. Private property is that which is owned by an individual, as opposed by the community collectively or by the state. They even use the term "private property." So, this objection of yours is baseless. RJII 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Despite the rejection of capitalism (in the sense of a profit-making system) by classical individualists, anarcho-capitalists who adopt the subjective theory of value have no such opposition to profit."

This article (that you started) is supposed to be about American individualist anarchists not anarcho-capitalists - edit that article for this. -max rspct leave a message 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

American individualist anarchists include anarcho-capitalists. This article merely focuses on the labor/value individualists since that's who the term is most associated with.

• "Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Wendy McElroy, refer to themselves simply as "individualist anarchists." However, the term is usually used in reference to the classical individualists, and its use by anarcho-capitalists is highly contentious"

speaks for itself -max rspct leave a message 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note that even though some anarcho-capitalists call themselves individualist anarchists, the article is focusing on labor/value individualists. That is an aid to the reader.

• "Most of the radical American individualists oppose the initiation of coercion and fraud, believing that force should be reserved for defense." (that should be all actually)

What is what context is coercian and fraud used? If you are extending this attitude to cover all American individualist anarchists (which would be inaccurate anyway) why have you used that in refering to "American individualists" -max rspct leave a message 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Coercion is the initiation of physical force or the threat of it. Fraud is stealing through dishonesty rather than physical force. What do you mean "which would be inaccurate anyway." Please name an American individualist that supports coercion and fraud? This is an important part of their philosophy --and hence, why they're libertarians. RJII 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On coercion and fraud I would like to point out that (in the absence of my collins english dictionary) the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists two things under coercion -

1 : to restrain or dominate by force 2 : to compel to an act or choice 3 : to bring about by force or threat

On fraud 1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

Now obviously it is unlikely that any philosopher or pundit would straight out admit to accepting either coercion and fraud. But on closer look it seems it all depend on what one is talking about. So further elaboration is needed. Would you exclude Voltairine de Clayre, Emma Goldman etc and put them as being outside the American individualist anarchist tradition if they advocated squatting, occupation of workplaces, civil disobedience (breaking of capitalist laws) and physical resistance to Lock-outs? Also, in the article you keep refering to "American Individualists" Or do you hold this to be synomynous with American individualist anarchists? Almost anyone in politics in the past 200 years would probably describe themselves as individualist or 'pro-individual'.
I think your claim that "Anyone moderately familiar with labor/value individualist anarchism knows that they support private property." is only marginally accurate when talking of a select bunch of individualists.. As as the article says they "oppose coercive privilege that they believe keeps capital concentrated in the hands of a few." But I think you would need to rename the article as it is toooo much of a generalisation when talking about 19th century american anarchists as individualism and equal liberty is at the core of anarchist philosophy. Over Xmas I managed to read some of Avrich's "An American Anarchist: Life of Voltairine De Cleyre" Very interesting stuff and her advocacy of debate and interaction between the various shades of anarchism quite emblematic in many ways. -- max rspct leave a message 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Emma Goldman was a commmunist, not an individualist. 2) The American individualists (individualist in this article is simply shorthand for individualist anarchist) opposed the use of coercion (physical force) unless used in response coercion --this is standard libertarian tenet. As a result, they abhored the use of violence (propaganda by the deed) and wished to dissosciate themselves from the violent communist anarchists. RJII 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No - your cunning 'shorthand' is misleading please don't do that. Emma Goldman was a communist? Are you joking? She was an anarchist and you know it. Why are you continously blurring distinctions? -max rspct leave a message 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

""Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it." -DeCleyre And, look at the lead sentence in the Emma Goldman article: "Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869 – May 14, 1940) was a Lithuanian-born anarcho-communist known for her anarchist writings and speeches." Everybody knows Goldman was a communist. Why don't you go try and change that if you think that's false? RJII 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As you well know - communist is not the same as or does not equal anarcho-communist -max rspct leave a message 16:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It does when we're talking in the context of anarchism! RJII 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You reverted back with the comment: "pov - calling all indi anarchists is america pro-capitalist esp. when they are against surplus value/land ownership is so badly inaccurate RJ" Where is that claim made? All it says is that anarcho-capitalists sometimes call themselves individualist anarchists, but that's is controverial use of the term, because the term is most often applied to those that are not capitalist --the labor-value anarchists. Let me ask you a serious question. Is english not your first language? Your edits and comments always seem really bizarre --like you're not reading and understanding. RJII 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

This article has little to nothing 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 21:54, 22 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 21:54, 22 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 21:54, 22 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 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't violate policy by putting an NPOV tag on an article without explaining why in Talk so the perceived NPOV problem can be fixed. RJII 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't have time to be on Wikipedia all day. I believe that the policy, anyway, is to explain the reasons for the tag on the discussion page shortly afterwards, not immediately afterwards. --AaronS 03:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that you removed the tags again. Please stop. I've already commenced the discussion. Please take note of WP:3RR. Thanks. --AaronS 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're violating policy by placing an NPOV tag on an article without explaining why. Don't put it back until you explain why. Just saying you think it's POV is not good enough. RJII 03:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where the policy says that. --AaronS 03:47, 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 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the policy. This is. Now, please review WP:3RR. I'd appreciate it if you ceased to revert my edits. --AaronS 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the 3RR, now you need to review it. Everyone is allowed 3 reverts. RJII 04:16, 23 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 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to consider what is meant by the word "harmonious." In the nineteenth century, harmonism and harmonists were precursors to socialists in the sense that we understand socialism. --AaronS 04:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Yet, historian Arthur E. Bestor, Jr. noted in his 1948 essay on socialist terminology that, between 1864 and 1914, "the most remarkable fact about socialist terminology was its relative stability. The general acceptance of socialism as the comprehensive name for the movement was largely responsible."[7]" Why even add that in? What value does it add? I think that only confuses things. Obviously Bestor wasn't aware of the individualist anarchist usage. Or, what "movement" is he referring to? RJII 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The same for "In 1880, even the conservative president of Yale University, Theodore D. Woolsey, considered socialism to be revolutionary, militant, and Marxist.[8]" Why?? Maybe you can put that in the socialism article. It's not relevant here. RJII 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was aware of it. In that essay, he discusses Proudhon's mututalism and the usage of the word individualism in relation to socialism. He claims that the two words were "paired." I added the quote, because you wanted proof that your wee Parsons quote was not the whole story. I think that it is very relevant for maintaining a NPOV. Otherwise, we risk writing away the socialist influences of individualism. Individualism is not so individualistic and socialism is not so socialistic as you might think. --AaronS 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What socialist influences of individualism? RJII 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are individualists who do not ascribe to the current notion of private property. You cannot deny that individualists themselves called themselves socialists. You are trying to do so by re-writing the contemporary definition of socialism, but you can't do that, either. That's not just original research, it's false. --AaronS 04:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course they subscribed to private property. What are you talking about? RJII 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the kind of private property that we or other capitalists/non-socialists ascribe to. --AaronS 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They mean exactly the same thing by "private property" as capitalists do. RJII 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion with you. You clearly have your own POV on this issue. The fact of the matter is that the individualists called themselves socialists, and they were well aware of the contemporary definition and understanding of the term. --AaronS 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How could they be aware of the contemporary definition? Could they see into the future? Obviously they didn't adhere to the definition that had to do with wealth sharing. What are you trying to do here? You're trying to equate them to communism. This is proposterous. RJII 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Being such an avid fan of Merriam-Webster, I figured that you of all people would have a proper understanding of the word "contemporary." Thomas Jefferson was John Adams' contemporary. Does that mean he was friends with Marty McFly, too? No. --AaronS 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to associate individualist anarchism with communism. It's ludicrous. RJII 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am balancing out your attempt to re-write the contemporary definition of socialism. That's all. Not everything is a big dark conspiracy. --AaronS 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rewrite the contemporary definition of anarchism. I accept the definition in Merriam-Webster [6]. All I was trying to do is to relieve the reader of some confusion when he sees that some of them called it "socialism." All you're doing is making it even more confusing just because you want to, wrongly, link it with communism. Look at it; it's a big mess now because I had to rebut your attempts to associate individualism with communism. Clearly, there is nothing communistic about individualist anarchism. RJII 05:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you accept that definition, since it really hasn't changed all that much since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Your edits have distinctly implied that there is nothing socialistic about individualist anarchism; that's misleading. You seem to want to imply that there is a stark, unassailable, binary dichotomy between socialism and individualism; that's misleading. My edits are just balancing that out. --AaronS 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept that definition as the contemporary definition --today's definition. The individualists anarchists are obviously not using that definition. There is a "stark binary dichotomy" between THAT definition of socialism and individualism. That's all I'm trying to point out. People today seeing the term "socialism" are accepting the modern definition of socialism and of course are going to be confused, so it needs to be pointed out that this is not what we're talking about when we say "socialism" in the article. 18:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't? Says who? Besides the definition that you provided from Parsons, which might be talking about socialism in terms of harmonism, I've never seen a definition of socialism that doesn't in some way incorporate some notion of at least some amount of collective ownership or limitation of liberal ownership. --AaronS 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's self-evident that they're not using that definition. They don't wish to abolish property property and collectivize the means of production. It looks like you're one of the people that needs the clarification in the article. It's precisely the confusion you're having that I'm trying to prevent by noting this in the article. RJII 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all definitions of socialism are so extreme. You're attempt to ease the confusion, however, does not demonstrate this fact. Rather, it defines socialism in a way that goes against all other definitions of socialism. It is possible to be a socialist and only be against some aspects of liberal ownership; it is possible to be a socialist and only advocate some level of collectivization. Your dichotomy might make things as clear as the difference between black and white, but that's not very accurate, because the difference is not so stark. --AaronS 18:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

SOMETHING needs to be said to show that they don't agree with the modern definition of socialism. I can't understand why you're trying to obscure it with all this nonsense. They fully support private property in the produce of labor (including means of production, capital) and a market economy to trade that produce --that's liberalism. What they don't support is private property in land (actually a few of them do), BUT they don't support collective ownership in it either. It's not related to the modern definition of socialism, and that needs to be made clear to HELP THE READER. Why confuse the reader? RJII 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, liberalism is more Lockean. That's mutualism. There's nothing confusing if we fully explain the individualist positions and then also note that they embrace a different approach to private property and also call themselves socialists. I'm not obsfucating anything. It may be clearer to the reader to say "They called themselves socialists, but they didn't mean it," but that's not honest. Accuracy is more important than simplicity. Simplicity is very important, but accuracy should never be sacrificed for it. --AaronS 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they have a different approach to property? What is different? Even Jefferson felt that there was no natural right to property in land, yet he was a liberal by every sense of the term --not a socialist. How are mutualists different in their approach to property??? RJII 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's your citation for this: "However, individualist anarchists opposed the communist notion of "common ownership," unless capital was created collectively." ? It sounds like you're trying to associate it with communist ideas where because something is made by the division of labor it then becomes owned collectively --a communist argument. The individualist didn't argue that. If a machine is made by the division of labor it belongs to whomever paid the laborers to produce it.RJII 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If nobody paid them to produce it, then what? --AaronS 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would they work without being paid for it? That would be communism. "Labor should be paid! Horrible, isn't it?" -Tucker criticising communism RJII 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Use your imagination. Forty people get together and decide to build something -- a mill, for instance. In an individualist society, the mill would then be collectively owned. --AaronS 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing individualistic about that. They didn't advocate that. They were arguing AGAINST collectivism, even if it was voluntary believing it to be unnatural and unnecessarily causing discontent and confusion. Of course, they would allow that, but they don't make such a point. Your statement implies that they do. RJII 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Greene is quite clear that the mutual bank would be supplemented by cooperatives in the realm of production and consumption. The "associated workshop" model of the time seems to have involved shared ownership of some basic capitals. The hard line you're trying to draw might apply to Warren—though the details of "cooperation without combination" come close to joint ownership at times—and to the liberty egoists. Spooner may fit. Greene absolutely doesn't. Some distinctions need to be made, or some generalizations need to be dropped. Libertatia 16:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you define a "cooperative," preferably with a source or quote from Greene? RJII 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go you one better. I'll have the whole 1850 Mutual Banking in a corrected edition online in the next couple of days. Then we can squabble with some confidence. ;) Libertatia 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a mutual bank is a collectivist means of production, anymore than a normal bank is.In normal banking, everybody's savings accounts goes into a big pool and it's loaned out to individuals from that pool, it doesn't make it "socialist" by the modern understanding of the term. RJII 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European influences

• The case simply can't be made that, "Their intellectual development was not influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence." This presupposes that the tradition of the Declaration was not "influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas," which we might question. But we absolutely know that Tucker was influenced by Proudhon directly, and by Greene, who was deeply influenced by a variety of European sources, notably Proudhon and his fellow 48ers Pierre Leroux and Philippe Buchez. Libertatia 19:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. It should also be noted that the question of property was an important one in founding the United States. There was much debate between those who wanted to enshrine property rights and those who believed that the unequal distribution of property would destroy republican democracy. There is a reason why Jefferson did not write "Life, liberty and property," but rather "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I actually have a scholarly essay that deals explicitly with this question. When I get home, I'll review it. --AaronS 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson didn't believe in a natural right to property in LAND. RJII 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was also very concerned with the unequal distribution of property. --AaronS 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to say now. He was a socialist? RJII 19:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Senator McCarthy, I am not. --AaronS 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was certainly not concernd about "unequal distribution of property." There is a difference between being concerned about equal distribution, and equitable distribution. The individualists were not for equalizing wealth, and recognized liberty lead to inequalities in wealth. What they found startling was the HUGE disproportionate accumulations that some had, which they felt was due to state intervention. Tucker felt this was because of the lack of free banking. RJII 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that he was. I'll have the reference soon. Jefferson was not afraid of state intervention -- the state governments were far more dangerous to the free market than the federalists hoped the new national government to be. --AaronS 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

True. I've been meaning to fix that. The quote was talking about the origins, and that does need to be made clear --it's talking about Warren and Andrews. Warren and Andrews weren't directly influenced by the Europeans as far as I know. They had no knowledge of Proudhon. RJII 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you had better check on Andrews. The guy who spoke a couple of dozen languages and wrote the treatises on "Universology" was certainly familiar with Fourier and Comte, and deeply influenced by both. I have the universological texts at home, so I can check a bit more soonish. Warren was certainly influenced by Owen, and would have known Gray's work. Again, this is checkable. The New Harmony Gazette is on Proquest, if you have university access. Libertatia 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I forgot about Owen. He rejected Owen's philosophy, but I think he still had some influence. I don't like the quote much either, but I was trying to defend against Aaron's trying to equate individualism with communism. RJII 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor you. :( I wasn't equating individualism with communism at all. I was providing contemporary definitions of socialism. That's all. --AaronS 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can we acknowledge that this is a question that needs some more work? And not do quite so much turf-defense in the editing? Proudhon says straight out that he is "synthesizing" (early) or "balancing" (late) "property and communism." Equating the two is going to be inaccurate, but the stark divide approach is also going to lead us astray. Greene is balancing socialism, capitalism and communism. Maybe if we do the work to clarify this apparent contradiction in early mutualism, some of our other problems will disappear. Personally, I think the entry should be inclusive. But is needs to be accurate above all. Libertatia 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note this is American individualism, so Proudhon's influence might count, but not his philosophy per se. RJII 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But the two explicit mutualists of the period agree on the point, and subsequent individualists acknowledge influence from both. Libertatia 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson, antifederalists, and property

For your enjoyment:

• "The American revolutionaries developed a clear calculus for personal and social morality... 'a rage for profit and commerce,' qualities attributed to Georgian England, were bad... [while] 'prudence, virtue and economy' were good." Michael Kammen, "'The Rights of Property, and the Property in Rights': The Problematic Nature of 'Property' in the Political Thought of the Founders and the Early Republic," Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution, State University of New York Press, (1989) 5-6.
• "The fulfillment of Revolutionary aspirations for individual liberty could lead--indeed, had already led--to the acquisition of private property beyond any reasonable degree consistent with republican values." Kammen at 6.
• "In his draft of a constitution for Virginia, Jerfferson proposed that fifty acres of land be given to every grown man who lacked real property." Kammen at 6-7.
• "[The disciples of Jefferson] recurred frequently to 'the principles of a just and equal distribution.'" Kammen at 7.
• "The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on." Jefferson, cited in Kammen at footnote 17.
• "...writing to Jefferson from Quincy, [Adams] conveyed a sense of the inevitable in troubled tones: 'as long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families....So sure as the Idea and the existence of PROPERTY is admitted and established in Society, Accumulations of it will be made, the Snow ball will grow as it rolls.' Why was the accumulation of property in families and individuals problematic? Because it encouraged aristocracy which was antithetical to republicanism." Kammen at 7.
• "Noah Webster, a Federalist, insisted that 'an equal distribution of property is the foundation of a republic.'" Id.
• "The most prolific among Antifederalist pamphleteers, 'Centinel' (possibly Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania), also writing in October 1787, took the very same position: a free republican government could only exist 'where property is pretty equally divided.'" Id.
• "...a majority of polemicists on both sides, then, seemed to echo David Hume's dictum that 'the natural equality of property favors liberty.'" Id.
• "Many of those who have written about assumptions concerning property in America at the time of the Founding tend to provide an exegesis upon Locke's views of property in the Second Treatise and then leap directly to 1787 in a rather unhistorical way, as though no changes or modifications intervened that might have affected the attitudes of the Founders." Id.
• "Equally significant, and perhaps even more so, the Preamble to the Constitution--its clearest statement of underlying assumptions and values--never mentions property. It does mention liberty and justice, of course, as well as domestic tranquility. We know that many of the Framers believed that domestic tranquility depended upon the contentment contingent upona widespread and roughly equal distribution of property." Kammen at 9.
• "One of the most penetrating and forceful Antifederalists, writing as 'A [Maryland] Farmer,' summed up the outlook of many by asserting that 'the unequal division of property silently and gradually undermines' liberty and equality, two of the most vital props of republicanism." Kammen at 10.

Perhaps we should incorporate at least a tad bit of this into the article? --AaronS 02:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize when they talk about Jefferson and property, "property" is usually a synonym for land (as well as in most, if not all, of those quotes) rather than income. If you want a really great article, check out The Radical Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson: An Essay in Retrieval RJII 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kammen makes it clear that they are talking about the accumulation of wealth in general. But thanks for the link. Unfortunately, even from my university, I don't have a subscription with Blackwell. --AaronS 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Natural wealth --natural capital. Not the product of labor --not income. RJII 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Income and profit do not necessarily need to come from labor. Even if they only meant "land" by "property" (and they didn't), they were arguing for the equal distribution of it. --AaronS 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson did at times suggest that people have an equal distribution of land. His position was that it should be up to the society to decide what land rights there should be --that there was no natural law one way or the other. RJII 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But he definitely did not advocate equal distribution of income. That would make him a communist. RJII 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps retroactively so. But there was no such thing as communism at the time, at least as a well-defined philosophy or movement. --AaronS 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Madison's definition of property was very broad: property "embraces every thing to which man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's hand, or merchandise, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, and man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them." (James Madison, "Property," The National Gazette (March 29, 1792)) So, clearly, we're not only talking about land, here. --AaronS 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. I know that when Jefferson refers to "property" he's frequently talking about land, as are commentaries about him. Do you honestly think Jefferson advocated equal distribution of income? That's ludicrous. How detached can you be from the philosophy of liberalism? RJII 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it depends on the context. Jefferson may not have advocated for the equal distribution of income, but he certainly did criticize the stratification of wealth, i.e. all property, as being anti-republican. --AaronS 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He did have some concern for grossly disproportionate wealth, but he definitely was not concerned about "unequal" distribution of wealth. He thought individuals had the right to private property in the product of labor, like all liberals. RJII 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He wrote to Madison on October 28, 1785: "Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." His words, not mine. Then Kammen writes, as I noted above: "[The disciples of Jefferson] recurred frequently to 'the principles of a just and equal distribution.'" Further, he "perceived the alternatives in stark form: 'economy [as in thriftiness/frugality] and liberty, or profusion and servitude.'" --AaronS 03:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He did believe in natural rights, of course. That's well known. But, he didn't hold that there was any particular arrangement or distribution of land that natural rights indicated. It was up to society to decide exactly what the rules on land were going to be. His philosophy is scattered around in letters. There's nothing really comprehensive that you can read on his philosophy by him, other than probably Notes on Virginia. You have to piece stuff together, and not everything he says is in agreement. RJII 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberals had varying opinions on land, just like the individualist anarchists. But one thing that's constant in liberalism (including individualist anarchism in America) is the right to private property in the product of labor. And, another thing is advocacy of a minimal state. Or in the case of radical liberalism, no state. RJII 04:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose taking the all that mess out pondering over the definition of socialism and just put Tucker's apparent definition in there: "...the bottom claim of Socialism that labor should be put in possession of its own." RJII 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Property Systems

This section seems quite informative and well cited. It explains the individualist anarchist property system well, and shows the differences between it and the more well-known communist and capitalist alternatives. What objections, if any, are there to this chart? 72.204.5.50

For one, the chart is overly simplistic. Many individuals who fall under or are generally considered to fall under some of the categories in the chart do not hold the views it represents. Further, it is flatly inaccurate in many cases. For example, it claims that under anarcho-communists profits from labor, land, and loans, "should be confiscated". Yet, most modern anarcho-communists simply believe that no active protection of such property claims should be asserted. Similarly, the "are privately owned capital goods permissible" question is not applicable, as most anarcho-communists do not theorize about what is "permissible" in society but rather about what is desirable and just. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you have some minor quibbles about the wording, but on the whole agree with the chart. You indicate that you would switch the wording from "permissable" to "just" in one place, and "should be confiscated" to "should not be asserted" in another place. Is this the essence of your objection to the chart? 208.101.10.50

The chart is admitted POV. My edit summmary should read 'bias sources' - provide some independent ones (i.e not Elroy or anarcho-caps etc)and we can move forward. THe table is a complete no-no. Are you RJII or hogeye then? you are both banned no? --maxrspct in the mud 19:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims

I'm going to start preening this article for unsourced claims. --AaronS 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Half of these anarchists are unknown. Why do they have major sections for them in this article? It could be condensed down, a lot. -- infinity0 08:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? Probably all are practically unknown to the general public, but there are some seminal figures in American Anarchism. Arker 10:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individualism

Why was the article about individualist anarchism deleted? It was much more informative. America has some communist anarchists but communist anarchism was imported from Europe. Individualism is the native American anarchism and much more can be said about it. Maybe two subarticles can be made about the individualists in America and the communists in America. TheIndividualist 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See Content forking. It was a POV fork by a banned user. The Ungovernable Force 07:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As a political, social and cultural movement

I'm working on a new section to add to this article so that it will focus on not just american anarchist philosophy but also on american anarchist activity. See here to help. The Ungovernable Force 07:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rothbard

This section does not conform to WP:NPOV. Namely, there is a dispute as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism falls under the rubric of individualist anarchism or anarchism generally. See Template talk:Anarchism for more discussion. I won't continue to reverse Intangible's reverting of my attempts to change this part of the article, because the last thing I want is a pointless edit war, but I'm placing a {{POV-section}} tag there for the time being. --AaronS 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a cite from the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Have you ever provided cites? See also WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. This is simply ridiculous. Intangible 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, I am not the one making the positive claim. I'm not sure where your surprise is coming from, since you are involved in the discussion on Template talk:Anarchism, where it has been established that your claim is contentious and disputed. I suggest that you re-read those same policies and familiarize yourself with them, because it seems that you misunderstand them. --AaronS 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My claim? I have only presented reputable sources and references there. Your arguments all have been out of thin air. Intangible 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CraP

This article is pure crap as it stands right now. I intend to overhaul it. Blockader 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tothebarricades 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Why is this article historically all backwards? And why are the more significant American (individualist) anarchists all at the end of the article?

19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but this article sucks. It's all over the place. hot 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Hot. Probably some highly opinionated authoritarian anarchists at work. Whiskey Rebellion 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haymarket

Where's the Haymarket riot and the May Day Martyrs? It's probably the most influential anarchism-related event in history and it happened in the US. Donnacha 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren's influences and other historical holes

Warren was certainly influenced early on by Robert Owen, and later by Robert Dale Owen and Fanny Wright. His cost-price approach was a conscious competitor with the Rochdale cooperative model.

In order to fill out the origins sections of this entry, and to escape the individual vs. collective nonsense a bit, it might be worth including William B. Greene's mutualism and the nonresistance of W. L. Garrison and Adin Ballou. Libertatia 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Warren was also influenced, as all early anarchists were, by non-conformist Christian sects (particularly his focus on natural law). And, of course, all American individualists were influenced by those involved in the Independence Movement which was, in turn, influenced by a range of liberal and Masonic and pseudo-Masonic European movements. Donnacha 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American individualist anarchism

I am an anarchocommunist myself, but I want an article on American individualist anarchism!

It'd be nice if one could learn about this philosophy from Wikipedia. I don't want a content fork where one branch assumes that individualist anarchism is correct (or more American, or pro-capitalist, or any other POV), nothing like that. Rather, I want an article that discusses the philosophy of such people as Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner, without mixing in (except for contrast and to cover criticism) the more communistic philosophies of Emma Goldman and the like. (I tend to agree with Goldman over Warren et al, but that is not the point.)

Not that this article should go, but I'd like the other one back!

—Toby Bartels 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be good. You say you want the other one back. Was there one? Was it erased?Anarcho-capitalism 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much way to make it without it turning into a pov fork. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pov fork"?Anarcho-capitalism 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See the link "content fork" in the first post on this topic. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why an article on a certain kind of anarchism would be against the POV policy.Anarcho-capitalism 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TUF: Why do you say that such an article can't be written without becoming a POV fork? That doesn't make any sense to me. We often have separate articles about various divergent philosophies; or is there POV dispute about whether Tucker et al had a different philosophy from (say) Goldman, Rothbard, and Bookchin? (It seems obvious to me that all of these 20th-century figures have significant differences from the 19th-century individualists, and often in different directions!) I agree that this version has POV problems, and the current reality may be that there is nobody with the required knowledge willing to write an NPOV article. But I still want to put on record my request for one! —Toby Bartels 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A-c: There was one at American individualist anarchism, later moved to Individualist anarchism in the US (an inferior title, in my opinion, but that's not important). This has now been moved here, but you can see its latest version just before the article's topic was broadened. There may be POV problems with that version, which is one reason that I don't boldly use it as the basis for a new article (I'm not sure what people found wrong with it). But it has a lot of information not found here now. What I'd really like to see is an article like it, but edited by many people, so that I could trust it! —Toby Bartels 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Let's bring it back and rename it back to American individualist anarchism. What is the problem with trust? There are a lot of sources and quotes in there. Bring it back and let people work on it. Who got rid of it? Was there a vote or something?Anarcho-capitalism 16:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rothbard and McElroy

This page needs some serious revision. Rothbard is not and never has been an anarchist. I'm not sure if he ever called himself an anarhco-capitalist (which is an oxymoron). McElroy is an American Libertarian, not an anarchist. Chuck0 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for both that claim they are anarchists. I have yet to find (and probably will never) a source that says the contrary. Intangible 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, " The public choice theory of murray N. Rothbard, a modern anarchist" [7] is an article not positive towards Rothbard, but it still calls him an anarchist. Intangible 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Rothbard is well documented to be an anarchist. And he calls himself an anarchist as well.Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist as well, but she uses the more traditional term "individualist anarchist" to describe herself.Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost the limit of price

To try to avoid a stupid, head-to-head edit war, let me just point out a couple of pretty serious problems with the current account of Warren's "cost principle." We can go from there.

• To start, it's pretty obvious that the full account given is not contained on the single page I cited in the earlier edit. Of course, on the Josiah Warren page, the same account is not sourced at all.
• The phrase "value the limit of price" does not appear to be either Warren's or Andrews'. In searchable texts online, it only appears in a review by George Ripley which characterizes Warren's system as "communism." (Hmmmm) If it actually appears in Warren, as the use of quotation marks suggests, it needs to be cited.
• The stock "based on the LTV" phrase, which an-cap editors are fond of inserting, in this case renders the paragraph incoherent. In the passages cited, Warren quite clearly associates value with any number of subjective factors.
• This confusion is compounded, as it currently appears that all goods sold by Warren were valued according to a simple labor-time formula of some sort, when what we know of Warren's practice is that his "cost-price" consisted of the cost to him of the goods (apparently at market prices), plus compensation for the time it took to sell the goods.
• The reference to Warren's labor notes is currently too little to help.

In order to get the section coherent again, the issues of "value theory" vs. "cost theory," source of wealth vs. principle of equitable commerce, time store vs. labor for labor exchange need to be dealt with, and not run together into the sort of mess they are presently. Libertatia 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)