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.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[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 ForceGot 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 ForceGot 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.[1] 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.[2] 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."[3]

"... 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"[4] and "associations."[5] 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" [6] 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)

[edit] dubious statements

"in an anarcho-capitalist society, no authority [dubious – discuss] would prohibit anyone from providing, through the free market, any service [dubious – discuss]"

These statements, if they are to be made at all, need to be heavily qualified. Anarcho-capitalists support the use of prisons and courts, normatively considered functions of government authority. That they have their own particular use of the term authority to somehow not apply to market based institutiions does not change the fact that most people consider judicial enforcement to to be authoritative. So this needs to be changed to reflect that this is their own POV. Further, there are services that many anarcho-capitalists believe should be prohibited, such as slave trade, so this statement also needs qualification. Etcetc 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green man from space, K. Carson, and individualist revival

You said in your edit summary: "there is no source for a "revival". anti-capitalist individualist anarchism is not popular at all. there is no revival." Why, just because you say so? The interest Kevin Carson's books and blog have generated, and the discussion of mutualism, Tucker, Spooner, et al., this has engendered are evidence of a revival of interest in individualist anarchism. What sort of proof of a revival are you looking for, Mr. Green Man, a march on Washington? ---Charles 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No not just because I say so but that the page shouldnt say there is without a source saying there is. So far I can only see two relatively unknown people. One is Kevin Carson who self-published a book and the other is a dude named Joe Peacott who has self-published some articles, etc. This hardly constitutes a "revival." This is not a revival but the end part of the decline in anti-capitalist individualist anarchism. It never died to begin with so there cannot be a revival. There has simply been a constant decline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
Well, I think we all know now that you are not the least bit objective on the question. You clearly came into this absolutely convinced of the absolute uselessness of anti-capitalist individualism, and you intend to make sure you get that point across. Now we know where you are coming from. ---Charles 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Source or it didn't happen.–Skomorokh 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional evidence/sources might include the ALL, the JLS debate over Carson's 2nd book, Shawn Wilbur's work, and Brad Spangler's work. Jacob Haller 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't "Shawn Wilbur" and "Brad Spangler" have Wikipedia articles if they are notable people? Who are these people? Just everyday people that put up their own web page? I am not disputing that there are anti-capitalist individualists anarchists in existence. There have always been anti-capitalist individualist anarchists in existence since back in the late 1900's. It's not as if there were no anti-capitalist individualist anarchists when the 20th century started. There have been anti-capitalist individualist anarchists all throughout the 20th century. What I dispute that there is some "revival" going on today. What I see are less and less writers backing it from the 19th century through today. It appears to be a constant decline and now down to a trickle. I don't see a mushrooming of anti-capitalist individualists as of late at all. If a claim that a "revival" is going on then there should be a source for that otherwise the page shouldn't say that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
For your information/amusement/edification, a Shawn P. Wilbur Wikipedia page. Libertatia 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"What you see" in terms of historical development is interesting, since it appears to have nothing to do with the facts about mutualism. Anti-capitalist individualism, of course, goes back to the 1820s. The last significant period of mutualist anarchist activity was probably the 1920s, when the younger generation of contributors to Tucker's "Liberty" produced their last major works. Swartz's "What Is Mutualism?" is the major text from that period. Laurence Labadie and some others soldiered on, but in fairly isolated fashion. Currently, Carson's work is receiving favorable attention from the editor of The Freeman and attention of various sorts from folks attached to the Mises Institute and The Journal of Libertarian Studies. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is an explicit agorist-mutualist-geo-libertarian alliance. Kevin's work has, in fact, contributed to a rather significant increase in the number of self-indentified anti-capitalist anarchists out there, while historical and archival work by others has certainly increased the visibility of mutualism in anarchist/libertarian circles. The broader trend aside, I think the ALL and the JLS special issue are sufficient to say that Carson's work has renewed interest in mutualism, and will edit the entry accordingly. Brad Spangler, btw, is a prominent agorist, one of the founding members of both the Agorist Action Alliance and the Alliance, a contributor to Agorist Class Theory, etc. He probably should have an entry. Libertatia 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Amusing, btw, that you felt the need to scare quote the names. They're real names, trust me. Libertatia 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You placed on the page that there is "increased interest." No evidence there that there is an "increased" interest. There has always been some interest. What interest there is in it now is so miniscule that it's hard to believe that there is any "increased" interest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
Show me a single issue of a scholarly journal devoted to mutualism in the the 20th century. Libertatia 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There were lots of books and aritcles written in the 20th century about the anti-capitalist individualist anarchists of that late 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
Show me a single issue of a scholarly journal, the sort of thing that Wikipedia likes for sources, devoted to a contemporary manifestation of mutualism, anywhere in the 20th century. I've given you a solid 21st century source, fully credible by Wikipedia standards. I am, in the meantime, going to edit the entry to be even more neutral. Libertatia 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That shouldn't be too hard to do. Murray Rothbard critiqued mutualism in journals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
I saw you brought up "Agorism." Agorists are not anti-capitalist. That's just Konkin's version of anarcho-capitalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
Don't get confused by the labels. Agorists and mutualists appear to oppose and promote much the same things, when it comes to genuinely free markets. The ALL is based on that similarity in goals. Libertatia 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Agorists are not mutualists. Agorists are anarcho-capitalists. Mutualism is anti-capitalism. Agorism is pro-capitalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
I would suggest that you actually read some current work from both movements, or at least read the first section of this entry. Roderick Long's treatment of "capitalism" as a "package deal" or zaxlebax definition is quite compelling, and shows up these silly wars over words as the sloppy nonsense that they are. Libertatia 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not just "wars over words." Mutualists are against interest, rent, and profit. Agorists are not. Mutualism is genuinely anti-capitalist. Agorism is not anti-capitalist. Agorism is just Konkin's brand-name for his anarcho-capitalism. It would be like David Friedman choosing to call his anarcho-capitalism by another name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
Prominent agorists and mutualists, some of them people with their own Wikipedia articles, have stated that they believe they have been "talking past one another." They believe that their differences are a matter of semantics, rather than substance. That's hard to argue with, particularly by Wikirules. Libertatia 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And you still don't know who "Brad Spangler" is, eh? We missed you, you know. Libertatia 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
All I know is that he is a guy that runs his own web page. That doesn't make him important.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
I object to mention of this "ALL" alliance thing. What is this? Some internet nerds got together and said they have an "alliance"? An alliance to do what? Where is your source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
I just saw that "ALL" web page. What an absolute joke. That's just kids playing on the internet. An "alliance"? How silly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
Thanks! I needed a good laugh. The ALL webmaster, is, of course, Roderick Long a notable figure with his own Wikipedia article. You're making your ignorance of these subjects very clear very quickly, I'm afraid. Libertatia 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
When you get so wrapped up in the internet I think you start thinking things are bigger and more notable than they are. That web site and "alliance" is absolutely non-notable. What's this silly "alliance" going to accomplish?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Green man from space (talk • contribs)
I'll let others decide who is too wrapped up in the 'net. You claimed that the ALL was "just kids." You are entirely wrong—and inexcusably so, as you are editing the entry based on your ignorance. You have now been better informed. Libertatia 03:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Kids and kids at heart. Anyway that website looks to me like simply a strategy to convert people to anarcho-capitalism. Like trying to to lure in even "libertarian socialists" to unite with anarcho-capitalists and convert. Green man from space 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that would contradict the explicit statements of the founding members, so we certainly can't cite your sneaky suspicions, can we? Libertatia 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya right? Everybody has a motive to convert others to their cause. Green man from space 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your inability to find mutualism mentioned on the ALL site. Perhaps you missed the header, beginning with: "The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists,..." Perhaps you were looking at the ALL page on a popular social networking site, where the "About Me" section begins: "The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists..." Libertatia 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see that. Ok. I still don't think the website is notable at all. But I also see that "Agorists" are calling themselves "left." That's obviously a strategy to lure leftoids in who unwittingly are being lured into laissez-faire capitalism. Green man from space 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You are, I suppose welcome to think anything you like. Here, such claims are clearly OR and beside the point. They also betray a pretty deep ignorance of the writings of SEK3 and more contemporary agorists. Libertatia 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on. This is transparent. If you call anarcho-capitalism by another name and say it's "left" you are going to get more of a fair hearing from anti-capitalists. Little do they know that agorism is laissez-faire capitalism. I suppose they don't even need to know because it's just a word right? It's clever slick marketing. Green man from space 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing you don't hang out with anarchists much. A significant number of social anarchists want to be done with the term "left" altogether. Others shun market anarchists, no matter what they actually believe, let alone call themselves. In any event, if what is actually being written by agorists is a sly marketing strategy, it's probably not going to sell your brand of anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, it's all fairly uninteresting OR, based in your apparently complete ignorance of the matter. Libertatia 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Any philosophy that promotes laissez-faire capitalism is fine by me. Believe me it does promote my "brand of anarcho-capitalism." If they want to call something other than capitalism great if that's going to convert people. Green man from space 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "Green Man From Space" is the same person as "Plant A Tree". I think they are both another incarnation of RJII. Same interests, same editing style, same ideology. It might be that "Anarcho-capitalism" user (who I believe was probably an incarnation of RJII, not Billy Ego) under a new alias. Full Shunyata 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article length and splitting

As the article is 48kb long, I suggest the Egoist individualist anarchism section, which is one of the longest, should be integrated into the Philosophy of Max Stirner article, with a slimmed-down version left here. Another candidate for splitting is the American tradition section, for which there is more than enough information in the articles of the individuals concerned to collate a worthy article. Thoughts?–Skomorokh 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've added a POV tag. One cannot write articles and put in analytical claims from primary source material. Intangible2.0 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What are your POV concerns? Jacob Haller 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Take for example the following bit of Charles Madison on Benjamin Tucker:

"Tucker was fully aware of the fundamental position of economics in modern society. Like other reformers of his day, he was strongly affected by the spread of urban slums and the excrescences of mass poverty in a land of abundance. Yet much as he sympathized with the aims of the emerging schemes for social betterment, he rejected all those which implied governmental interference or the socialization of the means of production and distribution. He was of the opinion that the several types of socialism would merely replace a laissez-faire capitalism with a large-scale bureaucracy which might prove even more burdensome to the great majority of the people. As an anarchist he maintained that even the best of economic systems would become oppressive and obnoxious if it involved the arbitrary distribution of goods according to statute law. He demanded liberty above all, including the liberty for man to control what he produced, as "the surest guarantee of prosperity." The policy of complete non-interference—enabling everyone to mind his own business exclusively—would permit wealth to "distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural operation of economic law"...Tucker...observed that he had no objection to large corporations as such, but only to their throttling of competition. He argued that free competition would cut the roots of monopoly, limit the concentration of wealth, and assure the well-being of all men. Earlier he had stated, "when interest, rent, and profit disappear under the influence of free money, free land, and free trade, it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wage for their labor which free competition determines." (Madison, 1943)

I'm not supposed to justify the removal of the template. You should justify its inclusion. That's what Wikipedia policy says. In light of the above analysis, I think you would have a hard time convincing editors here that the template should be included, the only thing remotely "socialist" about individualist anarchism, is that some of them espouse the labour theory of value. Intangible2.0 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
We have been through this endlessly. Madison's analysis defines "socialism" in a way that essentially rules out the possibility of libertarian socialism. That's fine, in an article, where you can define things any way you want, as long as you are clear. But it is not the only way to define socialism. It is not the way socialism was/is defined by a significant number of individualist anarchists, past and present. I think the template should go away because it clutters up the page. I further think that the endless debates over words with multiple meanings is one of the greatest impediments to getting any work done around here. I think it has been well-established that the precise meaning of term "socialism" has been contested from the 1830s to the present. To go much further than to acknowledge that fact is inevitably to introduce non-neutral POV. Libertatia 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
But you agree that the definition is different from that in the lead of the socialism article? Tucker was against distribution of wealth and socialization of the means of production, furthermore, he was not egalitarian. I have no problem with Tucker saying what he meant about socialism, but it should not clutter the lead of articles, as it will only confuse readers. Intangible2.0 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Tucker wanted to see the market redistribute wealth, and it is probably true that he was not equalitarian." If all factions in these squabbles were equally concerned with cluttering articles, life would be grand. It seems to me that the tit-for-tat inclusion of problematic language will continue to be a problem until a majority of us settle down to getting the details right, and leaving out the vapid, necessarily POV generalizations. I wish I was more hopeful that that day will come. Libertatia 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of "capitalism" and "socialism"

Any use of the terms "capitalism" or "socialism" should be consistent with the Wikipedia definitions. It is misleading to most readers if an antiquated usage is used without an explanation. For example, when we write about 19th century anarchists who used "capitalism" to mean concentration of capital in a few hands, or "socialism" to mean any normative plan for society, we need to make very clear what is meant, as these meanings are at variance with the terms as normally understood in modern times.

In the intro, we should probably simply delete the long parenthetical with the list of obscure synonyms - these could be included in the body of the article when discussing those who coined/used the terms. If we keep the list, then we should not falsely imply the Tucker was socialist or anti-capitalist in the modern sense. PhilLiberty 04:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should keep the list, especially not in the first sentence as it is. It would be better to move each name (other than basic synonyms) to an appropriate section which has room to discuss. If we keep the list, we should not falsely imply that Tucker was anything other than anti-capitalist in any sense of the term. 202.81.18.30 06:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Modern libertarian socialists often use capitalism in that exact sense, and socialism in senses which include mutualism (I would say senses which abolish capitalism, but not ones which abolish it for feudalism or the like). The statement that Tucker's position is not socialist in THE modern sense privileges the Marxist concept of socialism over the libertarian socialist concept of it. The statement that Tucker's position is anti-capitalist is rather vague, and something else might be clearer, e.g. that Tucker believed state-supported monopolies exploit workers and that stateless free markets would secure workers the full product of their labor.
Or you could describe Tucker as a free-market socialist, which may puzzle some readers. Jacob Haller 13:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So why should a 19th century definition of capitalism triumph a 21st century definition of capitalism? Intangible2.0 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This talk about "19th century definitions" and "21st century definitions" is errant nonsense. We have libertarian definitions and authoritarian definitions, as we have since the early 19th century, or we have pro- and anti-socialist definitions (ditto). It is a point of some importance that Tucker considered himself connected to the socialist movement. (Hey, even Josiah Warren was a member of the IWA for a few weeks.) It is a point of some importance that influencial contemporary figures, like Kevin Carson, or Brad Spangler, also consider themselves connected to that history. It's a point of equal importance that the "socialism" of all these figures is not state socialism. The rest is ideological wikiwar nonsense. My personal feeling is that, since it is unlikely that the ideological conflicts associated with these pages are going to go away, some slightly equivocal treatment of the terms is almost inevitable. But the most equivocal commentators on socialism, by turns applauding and condemning its various aspects, were the figures we are trying to describe here. The bare facts seem most likely to split the differences around here. Libertatia 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus about the definitions of "capitalism" and "socialism." If Wikipedia's entries suggest otherwise, then perhaps they need work. We know, however, that the entries on those terms/traditions are heavily influenced by particular political factions: Marxist-Leninists on the socialism and communism pages, for example. The definitional concerns in anarchist theory page was designed to address these issues, and would, with just a little more work. Or we can just edit-war forever. Libertatia 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of the "Socialism" and "Libertarianism" series

The sidebar templates claim this article "Individualist anarchism" is part of the "anarchism", "socialism" and "libertarianism" series. Little argument could be made against the first, but are socialism and libertarianism templates really appropriate in this article? Even aside from distorting the images (Godwin in Egoist section or Proudhon sections, depending on your screen resolution, Stirner pic similarly misplaced), it is very dubious whether this subject falls within the scope of the series attributed. Thoughts? Skomorokh incite 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, individualist anarchism it is most definitely libertarianism but socialism is a stretch. It's more liberalism than socialism so if there is a liberalism template I think that be more appropriate. Operation Spooner 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, seeing as the Libertarianism and Anarchism templates feature this article as a link, I'll leave those in and remove the Socialism template - if it's in the template, the template should be in the article, and arguments about the relationship between ideologies should take place on the template pages. Seem reasonable? Skomorokh incite 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Square one

The article now has four sidebar templates - anarchism, libertarianism, socialism and liberalism. Thanks to Jacob Haller, they no longer interfere with the images, but the questions remain - do these templates really belong in the article? Is the article improved by their presence? Are there other articles of GA or FA status that have such a plethora of templates? Skomorokh incite 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would look better with none of the templates but if the socialism one is in there then the liberalism should be in there to offset it because individualist anarchism is not socialist anarchism. It doesn't matter to me which way you want it, as long as it's all or none. Operation Spooner 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you will discover that Tucker though it was socialist anarchism, or more correctly anarchistic socialism! I do wish "anarcho"-capitalists would not try to rewrite history! BlackFlag 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] synonyms

I removed the synonyms because they were unnecessary and the last two examples seemed just to serve to push a POV. None of that is needed nor helpful in the introduction. -- infinity0 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Michael Freeden stuff because he is not a major figure as regards to individualist anarchism. If relevant, the stuff I deleted might be inserted elsewhere in the article, but I don't know where myself. -- infinity0 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: He need not be "a major figure as regards to individualist anarchism", only a reliable source for his statement. Skomorokh incite 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not common sense for writing an encyclopedia, or articles in general - you don't put non-major or non-general stuff in introductions. I have no problem with the content being included in other parts of the article. Other than "it's not good writing practise", it's also WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because the reader is led into the impression that "oh this guy is cited in the introduction, his views must therefore be important". Anyway I guess it doesn't matter too much now that it's in a footnote and less "in your face". -- infinity0 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What you say would be a good argument if the content involved were primary literature and not secondary literature. The concern is not whether the author is a major figure, but a reliable reporter. Skomorokh incite 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact looking at the whole intro, much of it is random scattered viewpoints, which aren't useful in summarising Ind-anarchism. Eg. "ind-anarchism = neg-liberty, soc-anarchism = pos-liberty" stuff - is this a common view? -- infinity0 19:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is definitely in need of expert attention or at least reworking per WP:LEDE Skomorokh incite 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes thats an extremely common view. Negative liberty is the liberty that the original classical liberals had in mind. Positive liberty has to do with justifying that others ought to provide you with meterials to live like food and shelter. This is alien to individualist anarchism because it is seen as a violation of individual rights. The rule for individualist anarchism is leave people alone to possess the fruits of their labor. Operation Spooner 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd qualify as an "expert" but I had a class devoted to individualist anarchism and also one on intentional communities which included discussion on Josiah Warren's experiments. My professor has published papers on free-market anarchism in peer-reviewed journals and gives them to me first hand. So I'm pretty knowledgeable about it. This article is actually not half bad at all. I'm kind of surprised. It looks like someone knows their stuff. Operation Spooner 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Common view? It's not universal, and describing this in terms of negative and positive liberties doesn't help. But there's a sense that positive obligations come from mutual agreements. Jacob Haller 07:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Freeden refer to the "redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution" or the "course of social evolution." I find it odd that he refers to non-anarchists as examples of an anarchist tendency. Moreover, he leaves no clear place for Proudhon's mutualism, or Greene's, which influenced the later development of individualist anarchism.

I still think the use of "socialist anarchism" as a synonym for "social anarchism" is likely to sow confusion. Jacob Haller 07:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think most writers consider Proudhon to be an individualist anarchist but something in between socialist and individualist. That should probably be made clear. I'm not sure if he belongs in article. Operation Spooner
I suppose we can trim the section, I'm not sure where, but Proudhon's mutualism was one of the main sources for American individualist anarchism. Jacob Haller 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
But social anarchism is a synonym for socialist anarchism. Why do you think it's confusing? Operation Spooner 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it's not a synonym for socialist anarchism... Jacob Haller 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One source is not a sufficient qualification to cite the view as "THE TRUTH", or even "GENERL CONSENSUS" which is what the inclusion does. There are plenty of other sources (which are far more notable with regards to anarchism). -- infinity0 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One source is better than no sources. If there is one reliable source in the article that says x, and none that say not-x, then x should be the position stated in the article. Very simple. No great discussion needed. Where are the sources you speak of? Skomorokh incite 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Kropotkin, EB, Tucker, SSA, Tandy, VS, and Lum, in various works, all describe certain forms of individualist anarchism as forms of socialism, which means that "individualist anarchism" and "socialist anarchism" overlap. Jacob Haller 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Which works? Which passages? If you want this pov reflected in the article, you're going to need to be thorough about this. Skomorokh incite 23:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
One source is *not* better than no sources. One source does not give an accurate sampling of the general, widely-accepted view. -- infinity0 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability. Your word is not good enough. The policy is very clear on this:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source; the source should be clearly and precisely cited, and the citation should contain enough information to enable readers to identify the specific text that supports the claim cited. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.
And in this case, the burden of evidence is still with the editor. The sources provided are not satisfactory. The wording implies these three sources represent general opinion. -- infinity0 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. The exact quote is "Some scholars divide anarchism into two main categories, that of individualist anarchism and socialist anarchism." followed by sources which indicate exactly which scholars the claim refers to. Skomorokh incite 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's the fact that it's in the intro that causes an imbalance, although I admit I overreacted when I said "general opinion". In any case, why should a minority view supersede a majority view? The "social anarchism/individualist anarchism" is used far more often than the other one. Switching the original sentence to say something completely different is bad practise; if lack of sources is a complaint, put up a request for them. -- infinity0 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Also I would like to point you to this (remove the underscores). It illustrates my point rather nicely. :P -- infinity0 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You have not provided sufficient evidence that this is a minority view. Even if it this claim is true, and we had references to the effect that e.g. "The consensus among scholars is that ind anarchism is largely a form of socialist anarchism", there still wouldn't be reason to remove the "Some scholars" statement - it is so short and has such support at this stage that it cannot be undue weight. I'm surprised you take so much issue with this referenced, self-evident fragment considering the paragraph which starts with the unreferenced statement "Individualist anarchists are typically market anarchists".
The ED link is cute, but this is a "Some argue" followed by references showing exactly who the "some" are. IT is not a claim of general opinion. I'm not personally familiar with whoever put it into the article, but don't you think we should assume good faith? Why not put an end to this argument by providing references to support your position that meet the criteria?
Evidence provided below, you may judge as "sufficient" or not. It does not have "such support" at this stage, though - google search "socialist anarchism" (with quotes). Three sources is nothing. I take such issue with this because I have some knowledge about the subject. One example of such a source is An Anarchist FAQ which uses the social/individualist classification. Another is Murray Bookchin, which uses social/lifestyle anarchism (he uses this term to refer to certain types of individualist anarchism). I have neither the time nor money to buy crap loads of books to find more sources - I believe the google searches speak for themselves anyways. If you don't believe me, fuck it. Wikipedia is going to shit anyways, and I'm going to bed. -- infinity0 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know all about WP:AGF but I have had so many bad experiences with this subject on wikipedia that it's hard to AGF edits which coincide with previous POV-pushing attempts. Apologies to OS if I seemed overly pushy, but I tried my best (see below) to explain to you what my issues with your edits are. -- infinity0 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OS, I still disagree with inclusion of the synonyms in the intro, I think it's bloaty. Perhaps it could be moved to section #1? -- infinity0 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, apologies for that edit. I meant to only remove the "socialist anarchism" part. I probably clicked edit on an old version by mistake or something. -- infinity0 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OS, will you just do a google search for "socialist anarchism" and look for yourself. Whatever views you have about the "individualist/social" thingy (which I myself have no idea whether is true or not), your version is far worse. There is absolutely no evidence of what you're inputting into the article being actually used (as in thoroughly developing this idea and using it in subsequent arguments) by anyone besides your sources (which I have not yet verified), so they are irrelevant. However, the "individualist/social anarchism" thingy is actually used by eg:

  • Murray Bookchin
  • AFAQ
  • And various other online articles on anarchism [7]

Kevin Carson has yet another view, that of "mutualism/communal anarchism":

  • [8] - "The [sic] Anarchist FAQ at Spunk divides anarchism into two main branches, social and individualist anarchism, and treats mutualism as a subset of social anarchism. We prefer to treat individualism as a distinctly American form of mutualism, developed under peculiarly American conditions. "

Also, it would help if you were to provide quotes of the particular passages in those books, and also explain why they are relevant for inclusion in this article, despite huge numbers of sources contradicting what they say (or at least, what you imply that they are implying). -- infinity0 23:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Modern Social thought in the anarchism article: "But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and socialist anarchism..The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies...Socialist anarchism, in contrast, rejects private property along with the state as a major source of social inequality."
Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press: "anarchism is a looser umbrella term that covers a cluster of concepts whose totality can be made to pull in entirely different ideological directions: towards an individualist or a socialist mode...Though socialist anarchism espoused liberty, it had to be understood --- as the Russian anarchist thinker Michael Bakunin saw it --- without a social context, and hence was proximate to one possible logical corollary of harmony: community. In libertarian as well as individualist anarchist thieories --- personal liberty stands out as their self-styled hallmark...As most libertarians knew, the market was a mechaniusm through with property and power could be dispersed as a function of self-interest --- against an appropriate cultural backdrop --- by publicists such as Benjamin Tucker. Instead of assserting, as did socialist anarchists, that common ownership was the key to eroding individual differences of economic power, it located that key in the equalizing mechanisms of distributing property in an undistorted, 'natural', market."
Dogmas and Dreams: A Reader in Modern Political Ideologies: "Since anarchists usually emphasize one or the other, their proposals can be divided into two categories: individualist anarchism and socialist anarchism."
There may well be a huge number of sources contradicting what they say but there are also a huge number of sources contradicting what your sources say. What is the problem? Not everyone gives the same names for categories. Just reference the alternative titles for the two categories. There is no excuse to delete referenced material. Operation Spooner 00:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. However, one thing. Why are these views important enough to warrant inclusion in the article? "Social anarchism vs. individualist anarchism" is used by a huge number of anarchists as a key point; these authors seem to skim over this own view as an easy classification.

The above argument aside, even if this view is included, it is only one view out of many, and a minority one at that. So, the wording should reflect this - i.e. it is important to that "social anarchists" should not be mixed with "socialist anarchists", to avoid confusion, and the view that the "individualist anarchists were socialists" also be noted. (Additionally, if we do include these minority viewpoints, it might be good to also include Kevin Carson's split of "mutualism/communal anarchism".)

In any case I would to remove the whole thing from the introduction altogether as it's not a particularly important thing. -- infinity0 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of reasons to delete sourced material. Most of them revolve around the source being misrepresented. For example, I deleted your stuff because it was identifying "social anarchism" with "socialist anarchism", which nobody does - most anarchists think anarchism is socialist, and the authors you cite don't use the "social anarchism" label at all, and have very different views with regards to what is "socialist" or not. -- infinity0 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The extreme minority view would be that individualist anarchism is socialist. That contradicts the definition of socialism. Individualist anarchists are for individual ownership. Socialist anarchists are for social ownership. By what definition of socialism would include individualism as socialism I'd like to see. It wouldn't be any normal definition of socialism. What would be the definition of socialism then? I disagree on removing the whole thing from the introduction. It's important to point out what the other major category of anarchism is that that individualist anarchism is distinct from. Operation Spooner 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That "extreme minority view" is probably the majority view within anarchism.
Tucker provides his definition of socialism in State Socialism and Anarchism (SSA).
Kropotkin discusses Tucker's position, and describes all anarchism as socialism, in his Encyclopedia Brittanica article (EB). An Anarchist FAQ also describes much of individualist anarchism as socialism (though Roderick Long, among others, has criticized its division between "socialist" and "capitalist" left-libertarians). Jacob Haller 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are a select few people that would call Tucker a socialist but most would not because it doesn't fall under the definition of the nearly universal definition of socialism which is a doctrine that advocates common ownership. Can you not understand that since it doesn't fall under than definition that it would be very common to not consider Tucker to be a socialist? Can you not accept that there are varying names for anarchism that is contrary to individualism and that "socialism" is one of those names? I've given three references for it. Do you want more references? When someone says Tucker is not a socialist what they mean is that he is not an advocate of common ownership. That's fits my definition of socialism as does it fit every definition of socialism in every reference work I've ever seen, if not in every reference work period. You should not be deleting referenced material. If someone uses a different name for the non-individualist category such as "social anarchism" then simply point it out. That's what I did. What is the problem? This is what I wrote that you deleted: " Individualist anarchism is seen by some as one of two main categories or wings of anarchism, with the other being called socialist anarchism[1][2][3], social anarchism, or collectivist anarchism[4]." What's wrong with it? It's sourced and it makes sense. Operation Spooner 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So was Proudhon a socialist? Jacob Haller 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the details of Proudhon but I believe he was for common ownership in the case of large workplaces but individual ownership of smaller workplaces. If that's true then I think that would make him part individualist and part socialist. Perhaps that's why he's often considered to be between individualism and socialism instead of a pure individualist. Operation Spooner 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at what I just found, a list of many definitions of socialism on Wikiquote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Definitions_of_socialism Look at that and please tell me how individualist anarchism fits under any of those definitions. It's perfectly understandable why writers would not include individualist anarchism under socialism. It doesn't fit the definition at all. It's not socialism. Operation Spooner 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism" by Noam Chomsky fits Tucker's ideas pretty well. Also, "Riverside Webster's II New College Dictionary: "1. a. A social system in which the producers possess political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. b. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system." fits it pretty well.

In any case what you're discussing is WP:OR - Tucker considered himself an anti-capitalist and part of the socialist movement. And also, socialist anarchism != social anarchism, which is what you're adding to articles. -- infinity0 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, just because you're an anti-capitalist it doesn't make you a socialist. What makes you a socialist by almost all definitions is that you support common ownership. Therefore under most definitions Tucker is not a socialist but an individualist. I'm not doing any Original Research. It's referenced that some do not consider individualist anarchism to be in the socialist wing of anarchism. Operation Spooner 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet you are presenting this as the only, or the majority, viewpoint. -- infinity0 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No I'm not. I presented the fact that both terms are used, socialist and social, for the other wing of anarchism. Operation Spooner 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly not what the sources say. There does not exist a unique entity such as "other wing of anarchism" which all authors refer to. -- infinity0 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a wing or a school. The fact is that they put forms of anarchism into two main categories, individualist and socialist. It's referenced. Operation Spooner 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Referenced" is not a golden pass for inclusion. Pretty much everyone is against you, but you continue to be stubborn. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to think what my response to your above comment would be - you should be intelligent enough to work it out. -- infinity0 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's referenced. The burdon of proof has been provided, and provided with three references. Two people are against it's inclusion, so it's not true that "everyone is against you." And neither of you have provided any good reason to censor it. Operation Spooner 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep guessing what my response to your comment would be. I have given enough clues in the above comments. -- infinity0 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not here to play guessing games with you. If there's anything you want to say then say it. I'm not going to gues anything. If you're not saying it then it's irrelevant. Operation Spooner 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your unwillingness to compromise, or even consider other people's input, is astounding. Just why on earth have you inserted the disputed stuff into the Anarchism article and reverting me when I try to remove it? The guessing game is a product of your own stubbornness. -- infinity0 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You're the one that's not compromising. I put in both terms, "socialist" and "social." You delete "socialist" and only want "social." Why won't you compromise? Operation Spooner 18:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your version misrepresents the views of the authors of those sources. "socialist anarchism" and "social anarchism" are used in very different ways. -- infinity0 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms (continued)

OS, in order to make clear the meanings of the source you must make clear the following points:

  • Most anarchists (and scholars) use the classification "social/individualist" anarchism and see all anarchism as being socialist, because they all oppose wage-labour as being a hierarchical and authoritarian relationship.
  • Some (eg. the sources you cite) use the classification "socialist/individualist" anarchism and see individualist anarchism as being non-socialist, because it advocates free markets.
  • Others (eg. Kevin Carson) use the classification "mutualist/communal" anarchism.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. -- infinity0 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I hope the above is sufficient to see why such explanation should not be in the *INTRO*, because it would take up too much space. -- infinity0 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're making assumptions about the terminology that "most" use. Until you can find a source that says what terminology most use, all that can be said is some use individualist/socialist, some use individualist/social, and some use individualist/collectivist. That's exactly what it said. This takes no space at all in the intro. As far as mutualist/communal, first you don't have a reference for it, and second it's not relevant since "individualist" is not in that scheme. And by the way the reason that individualist is not socialist is not because of markets but because it doesn't fall under the normal definition of socialism which is a doctrine that advocates common ownership instead of private ownership. Operation Spooner 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to put in. The terms "socialist" and "collectivist" are referenced, socialist with 4 references. If you want a reference for "social" I guess you can find one. "Individualist anarchism is seen by many as one of two main categories or wings of anarchism, with the other being called socialist[5][6][7][8], social, or collectivist[9]." What problem do you have with it, and what reference do you have for your objection? Operation Spooner 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For background information, the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the most authoritative dictionaries in the world says socialism is: "1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common." So don't act surprised when sources don't include individualist anarchism under socialism. It doesn't advocate common ownership. It's not socialist under the commonly-accepted definition of socialism. Operation Spooner 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That "commonly accepted definition of socialism" doesn't describe the socialist movement, in that it excludes people who were socialists, and includes people who weren't, e.g. the Fascisti pretended to meet that definition.
That "commonly accepted definition of socialism" is rarely, if ever, used among libertarian socialists, so it's irrelevant.
It is neither commonly accepted (in the appropriate contexts) nor a definition. Jacob Haller 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Careful there, Operation Spooner, you're echoing User:Hogeye, User:RJIII, User:Anarcho-capitalism, User:Working Poor, User:Illegal Editor, and others. That same turn of phrase, in this same context... Jacob Haller 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If I'm echoing other people then those people know what they're talking about. The commonly accepted definition of socialism does too decribe the socialist movement. Political scientists don't consider individualist anarchism to be socialism, and neither do most libertarian socialists. One of these references was written by a libertarian socialist. You're arguing against references so I don't know what your point is. You just don't like what the references say so you want to censor these material out of the article. Operation Spooner 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you don't agree with the terminology but can you not respect that others don't agree with you? You don't have to agree with the terminology but I think you have to agree that others use the terminology. And if they do then the terminology should be noted in the article. Operation Spooner 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I there a way to put this to a larger audience? Just dealing with those with an entrenched point of view is not very productive. It's like talking to a brick wall. Operation Spooner 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Haller wrote: "That 'commonly accepted definition of socialism' is rarely, if ever, used among libertarian socialists, so it's irrelevant." I disagree. Articles should be written for the general public, not insiders with special jargon. So long as Wiki's definition in the socialism article has to do with "wealth ... subject to control by the community," consistency demands that socialism be used in this 'normal' sense, unless it is clearly specified that it is being used in a non-standard manner.
Questions:
  1. Who was the first anarchist theorist to use the term "hierarchy" in defining anarchism?
  2. Who was the first to use the term "social anarchism?" Bookchin?
PhilLiberty 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem, to my mind, is that Warren, Tucker, Lum, and of course Proudhon, who also stands outside the usually POV-tagged definition in the Socialism article, considered themselves socialists (e.g. Tucker's essay on the subject), were members of socialist organizations (e.g. the 1st International), etc.
Therefore, we should avoid statements which state or imply (by contrasting individualism to socialism) that they were not socialists. Of course, their beliefs, and particular points of disagreement with other anarchists, or with state-socialists, are fair game. Jacob Haller 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jacob, do you not understand that under one definition individualist anarchists may be socialists but under another definition they may not be socialists? This comes down to merely a debate over terminology. It's not a substantial issue. It's simply a fact that under the definition of socialism that the writers in the sources I've presented use that individualist anarchism is not socialist. You may have sources that define socialism differently, so under their definition individualist anarchism may be socialist. All that's being done here is pointing out that people use terms different ways. If someone places individualist anarchism outside of socialist anarchism, it doesn't change the philosophy one bit. It is what it is. So I don't understand what you're worried about. Benjamin Tucker called himself a socialist and I'm sure he was one under his definition of socialism. But not everyone, and in fact most people, do not subscribe to his definition of socialism. This is simply about terminology. Sources who say Tucker was not a socialist are simply saying he was not an advocate of common ownership, which is consistent with the most widespread accepted definition of socialism among political scientists. It's a fact that people use different terminology for the same thing. You might not like the terminology, but at least grant that that's true and allow this article to note the differing terminology. Operation Spooner 23:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jacob wrote: "Therefore, we should avoid statements which state or imply (by contrasting individualism to socialism) that they were not socialists." I disagree. I think we should use the standard definitions - the definitions consistent with other Wiki articles - rather than obscure or non-standard definitions that would confuse "lay" readers. We should not write 'Tucker was a socialist.' We should write, 'Tucker considered himself a socialist' followed by an explanation of why - because he defined socialism as the belief "that labor is the true measure of price" (from State Socialism and Anarchism.)

About my questions above: It looks to me (so far) that the term "social anarchism" was coined in 1971 by Giovanni Baldelli. At least, so far I have not found any earlier reference to the term. As for defining anarchism in terms of hierarchy, as far as I can tell no classical 19th century anarchist did so. Probably that also dates from the latter 20th century. Interestingly, one 19th century individualist anarchist, Henry Appleton, seems to define anarchism as against "leveling" and thus in favor of non-aggressive hierarchies!

"The philosophy of Anarchism has nothing whatever to do with violence, and its central idea is the direct antipodes of levelling. It is the very levelling purpose itself projected by republican institutions against which it protests. It is opposed, root and branch, to universal suffrage, that most mischievous levelling element of republics. Its chief objection to the existing State is that it is largely communistic, and all communism rests upon an artificial attempt to level things, as against a social development resting upon untrammelled individual sovereignty. Sifted to its elements, the government of the United States is after all nothing but a mold form of State Socialism. The true Anarchist indicts it largely on this very ground. He is opposed to all manner of artificial levelling machines. How pitiful the ignorance which accuses him of wanting to level everything, when the very integral thought of Anarchism is opposed to levelling!" - Anarchism, True and False (1884)

PhilLiberty 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms (still continued)

We do not cite other wikipedia articles as fact - this is original research, and other definitions on wikipedia may similarly be disputed. We just report on the views held. My suggestion for the actual text in the article would be thus:

Most anarchists (and scholars) use the classification "social/individualist" anarchism and see all anarchism as being socialist, because they all oppose wage-labour as being a hierarchical and authoritarian relationship. {cite Murray Bookchin, AAFAQ, a few other sources if needs be but two is enough.} Some use the classification "socialist/individualist" anarchism and see individualist anarchism as being non-socialist, because it advocates private property and free markets. {cite ONE of OS's sources, any more is undue weight} Other classifications are in use, such as "mutualist/communal" anarchism {cite Kevin Carson}, for various reasons.

-- infinity0 10:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all you don't have a reference for the terminology that "most" use so you can't make a claim about what most use. Secondly of all, what you're saying is not coherent because if someone classifies anarchism as being either socialist or individualist then they're saying individualist is not socialist. They're two different categories. I don't know what you're talking about with wage labor. Individualist anarchists don't oppose wage labor as as a rule. If someone says all anarchists oppose wage labor then they're not going to consider individualists to be anarchists at all. I don't know who this Kevin Carson is and you don't have a source for him. Note that you in your latest change you changed information to say something that the source did not say. It does not mention Kevin Carson and the source does not say that they define capitalism as having wage labor. Again, most individualist including Benamin Tucker do not oppose wage labor. Operation Spooner 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That "secondly of all" is the problem. Many individualist anarchists identify themselves as socialists in their published works. If it's fair to second-guess their self-identification as socialists, it's fair to second-guess others' self-identification as anarchists or capitalists. If the secondary sources ignore or contradict the primary sources, without support from other trustworthy primary sources, then they are untrustworthy primary sources for those new assertions.
The last issue is best resolved by fact-tagging the additional claims needing additional support. Kevin Carson and Brad Spangler are alive today and use the older def. of capitalism. I'll drop the wage labor ref, but some kind of reference to employer/employee relations probably belongs in there. Jacob Haller 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. drafted another text for that passage, added quick cite to Carson's SMPE. The work was self-published but was extensively (if, by the editor's admission, superficially) reviewed in Journal of Libertarian Studies vol. 20 no. 1. Jacob Haller 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously if an individualist anarchist considers himself a socialist then he does not employ the individualist/socialist categorization. And if someone seperates anarchism into individualist and socialist categories then obviously they do not think individualist anarchism is part of the socialist category. I'm not second guessing anyone identication with what I've added to this article. It's simply a fact that different people use different names for the two main categories. Operation Spooner 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Brad Spangler? Who is Brad Spangler? Operation Spooner 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OS, for "most", see

It is highly unlikely to find any secondary sources implicitly talking about the usage of these terms, but the facts are pretty clear from the above links. -- infinity0 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up." Lysander Spooner, etc etc. Even Tucker's explicit support of wages is not equivalent to support of wage-labour, which means specifically {the monopolisation of capital and the subjugation of labour through the employer-employee relationship}. -- infinity0 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dun dun dun... discussion on removal please? -- infinity0 12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
  1. Google is absolutely not admissible as a source.
  2. Bookchin and the AFAQ are reliable sources but they are from an undeniably socialist pov.
  3. Other Wikipedia pages are absolutely inappropriate as sources.
  4. The discussion of whether or not the ind/soc distinctions holds is original research. If it calls itself a badger and a giraffe, and no-one says otherwise, we call it a badger and giraffe, or at the very least report that self-identification.
  5. Kevin A. Carson is a major contemporary anarchist philosopher, having almost single-handedly dragged mutualism into the 21st-century and attracted the devotion of an entire issue of the JLS to his much discussed book. As a notable (in the wiki sense) person, his opinion is worthy of inclusion and his blog is a reliable source for representing his opinion.
  6. Brad Spangler is one of the foremost contemporary ancap/agorist activists, and is head of the Centre for A Stateless Society. His blog is a decent source where none other is available.
  7. We should avoid the use of terms like "most" "almost all" "mainstream anarchists" etc. at all costs, where there is any possibility that it might be contested by another source. It's not helpful, and borders on violating NPOV. Skomorokh incite 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem referencing a blog to prove that blog writer's own opinions. I have a problem referencing a blog to prove things other than that blog writer's own opinions. Concerning Brad Spangler, I can't find a reference to him in any writings. I don't think his opinions are important at all. I can set up a blog calling myself an agorist. That doesn't make my opinions important. Until he writes something that has been reviewed or cited in journals, I don't see how he could be relevant. If Brad Spangler can be cited, then I'm tempted to just set up a web site and write whatever I want so that it can be cited here. Just setting up a web site, including one called "Centre for a Stateless Society" makes you important? I can't agree with that at all. Operation Spooner 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Spangler provided the foreward to Wally Conger's Agorist Class Theory, which was based on Konkin's unpublished writings. He's a long-time Movement of the Libertarian Left activist and has been instrumental in the establishment of the "Center," agorism.info, (and since the MLL split) the Agorist Action Alliance, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left, and his blog and particularly his essay on "Market Anarchism as Stigmergic Socialism" has been quite influential. Spangler's importance within agorist circles in not really in question, and your ignorance (or professed ignorance) of that importance speaks poorly for your knowledge of the topic at hand. What and how things are cited is another question, entirely dependent on context, once something concrete is done to the article. Libertatia 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I looked up "Market Anarchistm as Stigmergic Socialism" and it's a blog posting! There is absolutely no reference to it or him in any scholarly literature. Sorry, but Spangler is not important. He's just another blogger. That doesnt speak of a lack of knowledge on my part as much as a lack of his importance. There are millions of bloggers out there. Concerning these "Alliance" websites, that's all they are is websites. I don't see any evidence of any real "alliance." Operation Spooner 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Gee. I get all nostalgic having these same debates over and over and over and over again. Are you sure we haven't met before? Anyway, if you were unable to locate Agorist Class Theory then I can't help you much. If you want to insist that organizations and events don't exist because you didn't find them on Google Scholar, then you've gone a little too far down the Wikipedia Rabbit Hole for anyone to help much. To reiterate: "Spangler's importance within agorist circles in not really in question, and your ignorance (or professed ignorance) of that importance speaks poorly for your knowledge of the topic at hand. What and how things are cited is another question, entirely dependent on context, once something concrete is done to the article." Libertatia 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So he finds an article written in 1973 in a libertarian magazine, writes an unauthorized forward for it and posts it on the internet. Sorry, but that doesn't make him meaningful in any way. He's just a blogger. One out of millions. He's not a recognized authority on anything. He not only doesn't come up on Google scholar but any other scholarly database. He cannot be cited for anything whatsover. The policy here says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." He doesn't meet any condition for a reliable source. Operation Spooner 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So you appear and make up a story about a living person and the circumstances of a book publication, and the story demonstrates that you know little or nothing about the individuals involved. This is a serious problem, since you are making judgments about a subject matter where, say, knowing the names of a few members of SEK3's circle would be an asset. Your story is false. You have no reason to believe it is true. And it borders on defamation. Not cool, champ. Libertatia 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with a Google search either to determine "most." A Google Scholar search would be more appropriate, because at least you're getting the usage in peer-reviewed articles but even then it's hard to prove what is "most" used. Operation Spooner 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms (still continued 2)

The problem with OS's version is that it does not explain to the reader why these different classifications are in use, and also it gives the impression that "individualist anarchism" is looked at in the same way by all authors, which is not true.

Another problem is that it gives undue weight to those terms not in common use, such as "socialist anarchism". Those four sources you cite use the term as a glancing pass, not as a major classification point. In any case, citing all four in order to support a minor viewpoint is also NPOV. Certainly this should not be done in the introduction of this article. -- infinity0 10:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you're generally wrong. It's not true that the "individualist/socialist" classification is not in common use. It's in very common use. It may be the most common use actually. But I don't have a reference that says which is the most common use, and neither do you. Therefore you cannot state which is most commonly used as you have done in the article. You're also wrong that the classification is mentioned as a "glancing pass." The classification is central to the whole discussion in the articles about anarchism. You're also wrong that it shouldn't be in the introduction. It should be the first line of the article, actually. Operation Spooner 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: "I don't have a reference that says which is the most common use, and neither do you." I think this summarizes matters neatly. Any material that is both unsourced (or inadequately sourced) and contested should be removed without question.
With regard to comprehensive vs. glancing treatment of an issue, it would be of great help in resolving these disputes if those with access to the sources (in most cases, OS) would use the Citation templates and specifically the "| quote =" attribute which shows the exact phrasing in the Reference section. I think these two measures would resolve 80% of the disputes on this and related articles. Thoughts? Skomorokh incite 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure than any one of these phrases can get around the sourcing/description problem. If "socialist anarchism" is the best sourced (and I'm not convinced) it is the least descriptive (in that it leaves socialist individualist forms out in the cold). Certainly "anarchistic socialism" and "anarchist socialism" were both used to describe individualist forms of anarchism. We could:

  1. Use "socialist anarchism," with disclaimers in the body of the text.
  2. Use "social anarchism" or "communal anarchism," the last being most descriptive, imho, but least used.
  3. Use "more communal forms of anarchism."
  4. Use "collectivist and communist anarchism" and switch from two-way to three-way division.
  5. Drop the passage entirely.

Any other ideas? As you may have noticed, I'm happy with new phrases, as long as they describe what they're supposed to. Jacob Haller 01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about just adding this in parentheses or in a footnote: "(Note: Writers may hold differing definitions of socialism and therefore some regard some forms of individualist anarchism to be socialist.)" Will that take care of it? If anyone wants to make a big production about whether 19th century American individualism is socialist I suppose they can create a section to and waste space on the matter. All it is that people have different definitions of socialism. It's a trivial. It's just semantics. Operation Spooner 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be OK - however my point has been that you cannot lump all mentions of "individualist anarchism" as *the same thing*. Different authors have used the term to mean *different things*.

And OS, by using the term "socialist anarchism" (which is NOT in heavy use and online articles (search google) verify this) you make it so the article explicitly take a stance

-- infinity0 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I think we should drop the stuff in the first paragraph, the "Individualist anarchism is often contrasted with social anarchism, or sometimes other terms[9]" in the second paragraph takes care of it enough IMO - or maybe we can add to the footnote about the communitarian/collectivist thing.

It is semantics but it's an important detail because "socialist" gives the impression that "individualist" is not "socialist" and using this term in the introduction of the article and citing it with the most sources makes it seem like it's the majority view, which is not true, and takes an explicit POV stance on the issue, namely breaking WP:NPOV.

Saying "ind/soc anarchism and other classifications" avoids mentioning the issue about socialism in the introduction, and avoids the difficulties of trying have a neutral wording in the introduction. -- infinity0 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that you can find the most common usage from a Google search unless you confine your search to scholarly publications. The only common usage that really matters is the common usage in scholarly accounts of anarchism, in accord with Wikipedia referencing standards. If you do searches in scholarly databases, "social anarchism" is not used much to describe the two main categories of anarchism. Just doing a search in Google, you come up with the same articles over and over and the same anarchist faq and Wikipedia articles. It doesn't indicate the most common usage. It just indicates what most comes up in Google. I disagree that it is a minority view that individualist anarchism is socialist. Even the article you are fond of citing from Bookchin, if you read the article his position there seems to be that individualist anarchism is not socialist and that's one of the reasons that he's so critical of it. Operation Spooner 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it's a "POV stance." It's just semantics. You can make anything socialism just by changing your definition of socialism. Operation Spooner 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of the reasons I said above, about implicitly reinforcing the view that individualist anarchism is not socialist.

Anyway, Google scholar:

Is this to your satisfaction? -- infinity0 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out the reasons for those terms because from looking at the sources they are many and varied, and it does seem that individualist anarchism is looked upon as non-socialist even by people who use "social anarchism". However, it's clear that "social anarchism" is the preferred term and hardly anyone uses the other terms, and so they should not be in the introduction. -- infinity0 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Skomorokh, Google scholar shows a clear bias towards usage of "social anarchism" rather than other terms. The version you reverted implies to the reader the other terms are equally as common as each other, which is not implied by anything. -- infinity0 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not proof of the most used but it seems to be an indication, so put a footnote that says "social anarchism" comes up on Google scholar than the other terms. But there's not good reason to remove the other terms, since they're used enough to be significant. Operation Spooner 17:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your position Infinity, but without reliable sources discussing the level of usage itself, no comment should be made as to prevalence. Web searches are indicative, and I'm not opposed to incorporating them as notes, but they are not reliable sources in themselves. The version I restored does not imply equal usage, just lists used terms. Skomorokh incite 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh fine. I still think it does give equal weight (all four given in a list, of course it's equal weight!) but whatever. I'll wait for other people to give their input. -- infinity0 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the google search is dubious because it catches a totally irrelevant (for our purposes) sense of "social anarchism" - Bookchin's social anarchism vs. lifestyle anarchism sense. To get a better search, you'd need to do a ( "social anarchism" without "lifestyle anarchism" ) search, in order to discard Bookchin refs. PhilLiberty 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

-- infinity0 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms (still continued 3)

I moved collectivst/communitarian to the footnote because they are even less commonly used than socialist.

I'm going to have to take up issue with this again however, after re-considering it. Having "socialist anarchism" in the introduction *is* an implicit statement on its usage, and we have no evidence to show that it is used significantly. -- infinity0 09:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

without reliable sources discussing the level of usage itself - it's highly unlikely for such sources to exist, so there should not be a huge demand for them. Google scholar is reliable enough - it gives a general idea of the usage. -- infinity0 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anarchocapitalist POV

I am concerned with the way in which the article presents anarchocapitalism as a main trend within individualist anarchism, by repeatedly citing its views in key places. This is not the case. -- infinity0 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The tree is POV in that

  • it misses out modern non-anarchocapitalist individual-anarchists. All the arrows eventually lead to Murray Rothbard, making him seem like the only person who embodies the ideas of those previous people.
  • it misses out socialist influence on Proudhon/Tucker/Warren, making ind-anarchism seem to be only influenced by classical liberalism

-- infinity0 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are reasonable points. To address the first, what do you suggest? Adding Kevin Carson/Samuel Konkin/Joe Peacott (or one box for all three) with influence lines from both Tucker and Rothbard? To address your second point, what would you suggest? Perhaps have a Classical Socialism box (naming e.g. Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon) which points to Proudhon and Warren? PhilLiberty 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I really am not an expert on this subject, sorry :p I can just point out mistakes in things that are wrong. Your suggestions seem reasonable, but I am not sure about the validity of the whole diagram idea (maybe it accounts for WP:OR, and we will necessarily have to leave out a lot of important information). We actually had a massive debate about including some sort of tree or diagram a year back and no consensus could be reached on what format the tree should take, and in the end it was scrapped. But who knows, have a go and see what other people think.

If you choose to have a go, maybe you could make one for social anarchism as well? Or even merge the two to make a general anarchism one? -- infinity0 09:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The tree is OR, and a constant source of conflict. Libertatia 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without extremely comprehensive uncontradicted references which specify who was and was not influenced by whom, no tree will meet Wikipedia standards. Skomorokh incite 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it would be pretty easy to find references. E.g. All links from classical liberalism through Warren and Abolitionism down to Tucker could be supported by one Voltarine de Cleyre essay: Anarchism and American Traditions. Apparently there is some POV consideration I can't put my finger on that makes some editors reject simple and obvious summaries like the tree. Hmmm. PhilLiberty 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the "tree" is that lines on a diagram showing "influence" explain nothing with regard to the development of ideas, and may imply connections which are not supported by the facts. Most of the problems we have with these articles come from trying to simplify complex histories and relationships. A diagram that showed something useful about the lines of influence among even the figures we have included in the article would not be simple or probably even readable. Libertatia 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy McElroy

Wendy Mcelroy is the missing link, so to speak, between old world individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. She defines capitalism, not as the earily individualist anarchists, but as it's normally defined today, as laissez-faire capitalism. But unlike modern individualists anarchists, such as Rothbard, that define it that way, she's doesn't call herself an anarcho-capitalist but simply an individualist anarchist. She says she chooses to engage in capitalism but recognizes that the free market allows others systems besides capitalism. She simply wants a free market society so that people can engage in any system they wish. That's why she calls herself simply an individualist anarchist instead of an anarcho-capitalist. She's not an anarcho-capitalist but simply an individualist anarchist or free-market anarchist. She explains this on her blog in "Capitalism Versus the Free Market": http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.855 There is no source for her being an anarcho-capitalist so please do not classify her as an anarcho-capitalist in Wikipedia. Operation Spooner 18:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the essay you linked and it convinced me that Wendy McElroy is definitely an anarcho-capitalist. Of course, I go by the definition of anarcho-capitalist, not what label she prefers. (Similarly, for Tucker, I go by the definition of "socialism," and assert that he is not a socialist, regardless of what he called himself.) Note that Wendy never denies she is an anarcho-capitalist, and explicity says she prefers capitalism to other economic systems. She says Rand and Rothbard were major influences, and makes basically the same comments about Tucker (politically right but economically wrong) that Rothbard does. In the essay, Wendy makes clear that the reason she prefers "individualist anarchist" to "anarcho-capitalist" is for diplomatic and strategic reasons - she wants to focus on freedom rather than economic systems, thus reaching a broader audience (i.e. by not turning off lefties simply by her label.) Since she's a columnist, this seems a smart thing to do. PhilLiberty 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I think an anarcho-capitalist advocates capitalism even though he will allow any other voluntary system. She doesn't advocate capitalism. She just advocates a free market. In a free market you can engage in capitalistic trade or non-capitalistic trade. People can set up communes and take part in a gift economy, and so on. Anyway unless there's a source that says otherwise we can't call her an anarcho-capitalist. Operation Spooner 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see. My (and Wiki's) definition of anarcho-capitalism is weaker than your's. I define anarcho-capitalism as anarchism plus a general preference for sticky property; you define it as anarchism plus advocacy for private property. Since Wendy prefers private property but doesn't overtly advocate it (i.e. argue with others that capitalism is a superior economic system,) you don't consider her to be an anarcho-capitalist. As I noted above, I don't think a source is necessary if something follows by definition. PhilLiberty 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As user Intangible has pointed out in the Anarchism article, synthetic claims need a source. If she at least called herself an anarcho-capitalist I wouldn't object as long as it said she was self-described as an anarcho-capitalist but she doesn't even do that. She obviously rejects that title for herself. Operation Spooner 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
She did not reject the term anarcho-capitalism. She simply expressed a preference for self-labeling as individual anarchist. The statement "Socrates was a man" is synthetic. I don't need a source. But if you want a source for "Wendy McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist" you just gave one above. Wendy describes herself in a way that satisfies the definition of anarcho-capitalist. (...assuming you grant my/Wiki's preference for capitalism definition.) PhilLiberty 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
She prefers capitalism for herself but expresses no preference for other people. I would call her an "anarchist without adjectives." Contemporary anarchist without adjectives Fred Woodworth says: "I have no prefix or adjective for my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work, as can free-market anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation. But I do have a strong individualist streak." That basically sounds like McElroy's position to me. But I think it wouold be improper to claim in the article that McElroy is an anarchist without adjectives without a reference. Operation Spooner 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Most anarcho-capitalists share Wendy's tolerant view of other economic systems, yet still call themselves "anarcho-capitalist." I prefer to use words as labels for concepts, thus call Wendy an anarcho-capitalist and Tucker not-a-socialist. Do you call Tucker a socialist, deferring to his preferred terminology? Actually, it's probably good for anarcho-capitalism to have various aliases, for marketing purposes. Those who want to downplay capitalism (like Wendy) call themselves individualist anarchists, those who want to sound lefty call themselves agorists or left libertarian, and so on. Different brands for the same product can increase sales. PhilLiberty 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't call Tucker a socialist because he's not for common ownership. I wouldn't call him a capitalist either though because of being so anti-profit. I agree that it looks like agorism is a marketing tool. Left libertarian? What? From what I can tell the difference from anarcho-capitalism is that it's supposed to advocate illegal action and trying to avoid paying taxes. Well, Rothbard advocated illegal action too and said he was not content to further liberty with just education. So that's nothing new really. I added a section on "Tactics" in the Rothbard article where I put that referenced info in. Operation Spooner 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that nowadays "left-libertarian" is just another name for agorists, geoanarchists (pure ancap except for land), and old-fashioned mutualists tolerant of capitalism (like Tucker). Hey we stole "libertarian" from the socialists; now let's steal "left". In "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" Rothbard wrote that libertarians are extreme left (and socialists a confused centrist movement, with left ends and right means.) PhilLiberty 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty funny. If anarcho-capitalism is left if it's called agorism but right if it's called anarcho-capitalism, then what's left of the meaning of left? It does look like the agorists are trying to steal the meaning of "left libertarian." According to Prof. Will Kymlicka "libertarianism, left-" The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press 2005: "‘Left-libertarianism’ is a new term for an old conception of justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property. Historic proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, and Henry George. Recent exponents include Philippe Van Parijs and Hillel Steiner." Agorism clearly doesn't fit the definition. Operation Spooner 05:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OS wrote: "If anarcho-capitalism is left if it's called agorism but right if it's called anarcho-capitalism, then what's left of the meaning of left?" As you probably know, "left" originally meant against the ancien regime, IOW against the existing (imposed) order. Thus all anarchists and minarchists are left, in the classic sense. Fredric Bastiat sat next to Pierre Proudhon in the French legislature. For more, read Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. Personally, I prefer a two dimensional model.

[edit] Dyer Lum

The guy doesn't have an article. Should we start one? Jacob Haller 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because it's a dead-end. Go ahead and start the article and we'll add it back in. Skomorokh incite 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with the guy. He wrote one chapter for Parson's last book, but iirc, Shawn Wilbur, who knows more about this than I do, states he was rather important at the time, and Kevin Carson points to Lum and Joseph Labadie as individualists in the labor movement, which sounds about right. Jacob Haller 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I found some sources:
  • Wischmann, Lesley (October 1987). Remembering the Haymarket anarchists: a hundred years later - Haymarket Square Riots, 1886. Monthly Review. Retrieved on 2007-08-02. “Avrich's conclusion that the bomber was an anarchist is based in large part on statements by anarchists such as Robert Reitzel and Dyer Lum. After the executions, Reitzel told Dr. Urban Hartung, "The bomb-thrower is known, but let us forget about it; even if he had confessed, the lives of our comrades could not have been saved.' In an 1891 essay, Dyer Lum states that on the afternoon of May 4, August Spies dispatched Balthasar Rau to notify the militants that no arms were to be brought to the Haymarket. But, writes Lum, "one man disobeyed that order; always self-determined, he acted upon his own responsibility, preferring to be prepared for resistance to onslaught rather than to quietly imitate the spiritual "lamb led to slaughter. Lum says the eight defendants did not know the bomb-thrower's identity, although it eventually became known to two of them "but neither Spies nor Parsons . . ..' Avrich believes the two who knew were Engel and Fischer. According to Lum, the name of the bomb-thrower "was never mentioned in the trial and is today unknown to the public.'”

Speaking of the "See Also" links, it seems like there should be an objective method of determining which individualist anarchist names would be listed. I propose that only the most popular. I suggest doing a search in Google, either in the general Google or Google Books, or Google Scholar to determine which names are most popular. Operation Spooner 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No need, there is ample room (the article is currently only 52kb long). If a cluster of related links emerge, they can be incorporated as a passage in the main article. For example, there could be a "Individualist anarchists" section, which would need the objective criteria you mention. The links should preferably have a short statement showing why they're relevant though. Skomorokh incite 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lum was an important figure for a long time, edited The Alarm after Parsons' arrest, was Voltairine de Cleyre's lover and mentor, wrote a number of key anarchist texts, contributed to Mother Earth, Twentieth Century, Liberty, The Open court, etc. He was a pretty good poet. Like C. L. James, he's one of the prominent figures who doesn't get all that much attention now. Libertatia 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 22 on pg 168 of Native American Anarchism says:
Dyer D. Lum, descendent of the Tappan family, his grandfather a Revolutionist, himself, secretary to Samuel Gompers, an Individualist Anarchist (1839-1893), but by the Chicago affair was convinced of the necessity for direct action. Edited Parson's Alarm, 1892-1893. V. de Cleyre, Selected Works, 284-296. Lum was "the moving spirit of the American group" which worked for the commutation of Berkman's sentence. Goldman, op. cit., I, 110.
PhilLiberty 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article created

Main article: Talk:Dyer Lum

Dyer Lum article created as requested, thanks for all the sources. By all means, pitch in and let's get this up to scratch. Skomorokh incite 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

[edit] 1800-1850

  • The Mutualist - 1826 - Owenite
  • What is Property? - 1840 - mutualist - Proudhon
  • Philosophy of Misery - 1846/47 - mutualist - Proudhon
  • Equitable Commerce - 1846 - Josiah Warren - bibliography
  • Poverty of Philosophy - 1847 - critique of mutualism - Marx
  • Proudhon and his "Bank of the People" - 1849 - secondary source on this period - Dana
  • Equality - 1849 - William B. Greene - bibliography
  • Mutual Banking - 1850 - William B. Greene
  • Spirit of the Age - 1849-50 - journal edited by William Henry Channing (available on Google Books)
  • "Mutualist Township" proposals by Joshua King Ingalls and Albert Brisbane - 1850 - Spirit of the Age
  • Ingalls bibliography

The 1826 "Mutualist" was probably not Warren. Libertatia 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1850-1900

  • "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: an Economist's View" - ??? - secondary source on this period - Rothbard

[edit] 1900-1950

[edit] 1950-2000

[edit] 2000-2007

  • Studies in Mutualist Political Economy - ??? - mutualist - Carson
    • Symposium on SMPE, in JLS vol. 20 no. 1


Just wondering. What's the point of the above? Operation Spooner 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proudhon individualist?

The article says "Though Proudhon himself is not always considered an individualist anarchist..." Ok, but who does? Anyone have sources for him being an individualist anarchist? If not, then maybe he should be talked about in an "Influences" section. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)