Jump to content

Talk:Individualist anarchism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srich32977 (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 19 March 2022 (project tweaks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Anarchism Tree Diagram

Sock, now indeffed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anarchism Tree

It helps to have a diagram of the various schools of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeŻet, you should discuss things rather than unilaterally deleting my edits. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilLiberty: Could you please stop vandalizing pages using some diagrams you created. Per WP:BRD, you are making a bold change that warrants discussion. There is a large number of sources indicating that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism. If you disagree, discuss this first before engaging in an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm pretty good at the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. By the definitions given in Wikipedia articles and this article, anarcho-capitalism qualifies as individualist anarchism. This is supported by Benjamin Tucker and Voltairine de Cleyre among others. It is true that a large number of sources, virtually all sectarian anarcho-socialists, that cite the old "true Scotsman" aka dildo fallacy. I would say that this position was refuted long ago in essays like this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html Now I will boldly revert again. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true. Benjamin Tucker wasn't even alive when Rothbard came up with his ideology. Stop edit warring, or you will be reported. BeŻet (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction of labels

The page is very well-sourced in general, but I consider it a bit flawed regarding a few labels for certain thinkers and the ideology itself. To begin with, the ideology is labeled as a Libertarian Socialist ideology, to which by itself I don't have any issue with since many of its important writers identified themselves with that term (say, Benjamin Tucker or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon), but it also, in the second paragraph calls Herbert Spencer part of the Individualist Anarchists. It completely contradicts itself since, after all, Herbert Spencer was a supporter of Laissez-Faire economics and was staunchingly oppossed to Socialism, even going as far to call it enslavement to the community. To which I also find contradictory the exclusion of Rothbardian Anarchism/Anarcho-Capitalism from the ideology because it "Individualist Anarchism is a Socialist movement", while having a staunching anti-socialist as one of the examples. Furthermore, it also fits the fourth type of Individualist Anarchism which "retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market relationships" and "anarchist individualists 'are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centred upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State'. It seems to me that the exclusion of Capitalist Anarchism is a mere issue of semantics, specifically about the meaning of Capitalism, for the most part. Furthermore, and this would be more of a semantics issue as well, Lysander Spooner is also included (which by itself I have no issue with), but I think it also conflicts the idea of Individualist Anarchism being part of the Libertarian Socialist category. First off, there is no actual source of Lysander Spooner ever calling himself a "Socialist", and the claim of him being part of the First International is dubious at most, the only source being a book written in the 60s by George Woodbook with no citations; and second off, calling Lysander Spooner a Socialist contradicts the very definition of Socialism exposed in its respective page, the only thing that could make Lysander Spooner a Socialist is his criticism of wage labor, which he didn't oppose from a legal standpoint. Unless Lysander Spooner is the first ever Socialist to be pro-usury[1], pro-market, pro-interest, & pro-rent,[2] then either the Individualist Anarchism page being part of the category of Libertarian Socialism or both Lysander Spooner and Herbert Spencer being exposed as Individualist Anarchists should be changed, and I don't think anybody would say that Lysander Spooner isn't an Individualist Anarchist nor anyone would deny Herbert Spencer's influence. Thus, and also due to it being impartial (giving the opinion of authors in favor of the idea of Individualist Anarchism being Socialistic more importance than those that don't) I'd like to eliminate Individualist Anarchism from the Libertarian Socialist category. -- Coindorni (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC) -- Edited: 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert is presented as having an influence on individualist anarchism, however there aren't many people who actually describe his as an anarchist. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Coindorni. Individualist anarchism is not necessarily socialist. Ancap is definitely a form of individualist anarchism. (See the new diagram.) Also, I agree that we have definitional issues with both "capitalism" and "socialism." Both terms have changed considerably in meaning over time, and what people called "socialism" in the 19th century is not what we generally call socialism today. The Wikipedia article on socialism defines it in terms of collective ownership. This article seems to play loose with the definition, construing it as support for some form of the labor theory of value. So we have people like Benjamin Tucker who supports private property (of the possession sort) but also has a labor theory of value. He is both capitalist and socialist? I would call him a capitalist, due to his support for private property and free markets, but not a socialist in the modern pro-collective (anti-private) property sense. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spooner, Lysander (1846). Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure. Boston: Bela Marsh.
  2. ^ Spooner, Lysander (1855). The Law of Intellectual Property; or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas. Boston: Bela Marsh. Section VI

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Individualist_anarchism&oldid=1078041166"