Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/anarchism

Current status: user:Andrevan has been assigned to mediate this dispute. 16:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism

User:RJII rejected mediation earlier regarding this topic, saying "I've simply been debating in the discussion page, and now I'm tired of it. If it's unlocked, maybe I'll edit, otherwise, I'm losing interest fast", although it would appear otherwise to read the talk page of the article. The primary conflict regarding this page is between "anarcho-capitalists" and "left-wing" anarchists, both of whom feel they are the rightful bearers of the term. Currently the article is a mesh of the two and going in two very different philosophical directions. The "anarcho-capitalist" faction maintains that the article is "neutral" because the article "equally" represents both the common perception of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, although dismissing the NPOV rule regarding undue weight. The "left-wing" anarchist faction does not appreciate this undue weight, and the article is currently left with two sides who cannot tolerate one another sharing a single article, in the same way you might expect if libertarianism and libertarian socialism were merged into a single article. Third party intervention is needed in order to help settle the "debate", which is in fact quite often more of a shouting match. Sarge Baldy 21:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful about stating that the conflict is "between "anarcho-capitalists" and "left-wing" anarchists." You shouldn't presume that those who want to include anarcho-capitalism are anarcho-capitalists. Moreover, you shouldn't presume that everyone working on the article are anarchists. You may be entering this dispute from the point of view of an anarchist in a political war with an agenda to push, but some of us are just trying to maintain an NPOV article. RJII 01:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Sarge, you have quite some nerve calling it a shouting match, which implies disorder. In reality, RJII and I have been providing you and everyone else with reasoned justifications for why things are included. Second of all, I think you've mischaracterized the conflict. The anarcho-capitalists don't want to exclude other anarchists from using the term. Third, I don't think you should be participating in the mediation; you should let someone else be your advocate. Why? Because you have revealed that you are not familiar with the issues or the archives. As a few examples, 1) You claimed that American individualist anarchists have been rejected by traditional socialist anarchists. This is false, as seen from the archives [1] [2] (just to name a few places in the archive; there are probably a lot more) or literature [3] [4] 2) You came into the discussion unaware of how in the archive, the dictionaries and early anarchists [5] were vetted and both of them favored the anti-state rather than anti-capitalist definition of anarchism. 3) You claimed that individualist anarchism was a new invention [6] when in fact it was the first [7]! Furthermore, you have told an outright lie. You claimed [8] that the first 25 pages of a Google search for "anarchism" mentioned nothing about anarcho-capitalism, when the first result [9] mentions anarcho-capitalism [10]!!! And you're a sysop?

Now, let's go over some hard facts about why anarcho-capitalism deserves to stay:

1)As mentioned above, almost all of any random sampling of dictionaries, which reflect common usage, will favor the definition of anarchism that anarcho-capitalists use.

2)Also as mentioned and linked above, the orignal anarchists defined anarchism as anti-state but not necessarily anti-capitalist.

3)Traditional anarchists such as Kropotkin agreed [11] that individualist anarchists are true anarchists.

4)Current individualist anarchists do consider anarcho-capitalism a non-traditional form of anarchism. [12] [13] [14] There's a whole article discussing this at individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

4) People we all agree were anarchists supported many aspects of capitalism, such as private property, and contracts for wage labor, such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. [15]

5) If you want to talk about significance, realize that the largest anti-state site (that I know of), lewrockwell.com is much higher ranked by Alexa than the major anarchist site, Infoshop. (Currently not working so I can't link to the comparison.)

6) That many people claim anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism is no reason to keep it off the page. Prominent individuals have claimed that anarcho-communism [16], anarcho-syndicalism [17], and anarcho-primitivism [18] (see reference in primitivism section) are not true forms of anarchism.

7) Anarchism is not one unified movement that always agrees, as traditional anarchists will tell you.

In conclusion, I can see no valid NPOV reason to change anarcho-capitalism's role on the page. MrVoluntarist 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see a need for mediation. The article is doing fine and has been stable lately, and pretty much NPOV. Sarge Baldy showed up one day ago, ill-informed, decided he didn't like the article, and called for a mediation. RJII 04:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ill-informed? A former anarcho-capitalist myself, I ironically helped to format the section myself. But there never was any consensus to include these strands. The most comprehensive survery on the matter from this February shows 8 out of 11 users responding that the "the distinguishing characteristics of anarchist philosophies" are "A movement against hierarchy, which requires opposition to capitalism, statism, racism, etc." A 5-4-1-1 minority victory suggests the article "include controversial claimants to which there is a good account of."

As Albamuth says, "People were split on whether or not to mention A-C 'at all in the article, so we do include it, but not as part of the article's own definition of anarchist beliefs." What has happened with the article is that people have moved topics from the "Conflicts within anarchist thought" into the list of primary schools of anarchist thought, and then in time attempted to establish it as the legitimate point of view through consensus, which it never in fact was.

From more recent further polling generated on the talk page relating to their inclusion, there seemed very little in the way of consensus for "equal status" in regard to these articles. On the contrary, of 8 total claims generated, only two articles exceeded one true or otherwise valid vote under the heading "Pro Anarcho-Capitalist Arguments".

1. "Individualist anarchism will be included as a school of anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism will as well by the same basic reasoning", with 2 votes for, 6 against, one "prolly not" and one "dubious".
2. "Capitalist Anarchism is a 'school' of anarchism" recorded 2 trues, 7 against, 1 questioning the notion of "schools" altogether.

While certainly it's fair to take these polls with a grain of salt, as I wouldn't wager to consider this a "neutral" location, I see no evidence that there ever was consensus for their inclusion in the top sections of the article; on the contrary, there seems to be indications of consensus in the other direction. Sarge Baldy 06:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That's ancient history. Consensus changes from one day to the next. Since the article is pretty stable now, it appears to me that its current form is consensual. RJII 07:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as regarding anarcho-capitalism the article is okay, except when someone adds 15 anarcho-capitalist books to the books list. I've allowed one Rothbard book there as a compromise, but even that's pushing it - I mean, there's only one or two books from schools of infinitely more importance. --Tothebarricades 22:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Name one. MrVoluntarist 00:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pushing an article into a particular state without consensus and then staving off opposition doesn't suggest a consensus of the end result. It's simply taking over an article and establishing it as legitimate, to a point where any attempt to modify the article to reflect actual talk page discussions (often quickly buried into archives) actually appear as vandalism attempts. Sarge Baldy 23:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. The anarchism article has reflected the talk page very well, in which the ideas favored by anarcho-capitalist sympathizers beat out the others. Did you not notice that those wishing to exclude anarcho-capitalism don't bother justifying themselves on the talk page, despite repeated requests to? MrVoluntarist 00:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't what is actually listed on the talk page that's important, it's the major changes that have been instituted (almost exclusively by RJII) that did not bother to make use of it. If the talk page reflects the article, it's only because RJII has taken the legitimacy of the article into his own hands, in such a way that any new major changes must be "approved" by him beforehand. Sarge Baldy 21:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't change the topic. You claimed the article doesn't reflect the talk page. It does. People attempt to justify certain exclusions. They fail. The exclusions are reverted. Once someone presents coherent reasons to justify exclusions, the relevant topics are excluded. MrVoluntarist 02:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I question that polling evidence. Everyone talking part in those polls was a partisan of one side or another, and the sample was small. We need to hear opinions of people like our current mediator, independent of such polls. I've presented a well-documented list of reasons why anarcho-capitalism belongs. Among other things, it's popularity, the fact that respected anarchists have called it a form of anarchism, that the dictionary definition does not exclude it, and that most schools of anarchist thought are already widely inconsistent with one another, to the point of denying others the title of "anarchist". MrVoluntarist 00:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I question the polling evidence as well. However, it's the only polling evidence to be gathered on the subject, and has been continually ignored and not represented in the article. If you'd like, I'll contest your points.

1. This is your own interpretation. While anarcho-capitalism could be argued to be included by some definitions, it does seem to be eliminated by others. For instance, the Cambridge Dictionary says that anarchism is "the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together". I could also quote the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology's text on the subject if you would like, although it is a bit long. In cases you might see as allowing anarcho-capitalism (i.e. the Oxford Pocket Dictionary defines it as a "political theory that all government and laws should be abolished"), note that the word "all" is used, suggesting an inclusive use of the words "government" and "law" should be used. As dictionary definitions strive towards minimalism, and as this word would be otherwise unnecessary ("political theory that government and laws should be abolished" would still strongly disclude the most obvious rational-legal forms of government).
2. The source you use to cite the popularity of anarcho-capitalism is evidence only that anarcho-capitalism is popular, which no one would deny. I don't see how that is evidence that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism.
3. In Kropotkin's time, individualist anarchism was not what it has become since.
4. Of course they do. And yet modern individualist anarchists themselves are criticized by all "left-wing" anarchist groups.
5. The article isn't about anarchists, it's about anarchism, which has never a whole embraced these topics. It's impossible to expect all anarchists to be sufficiently radical in every respect. For instance, some early feminists were opposed to suffrage. That isn't to say that they weren't feminist, but simply that they were a sign of their times.
6. Note that you use "many people" to describe opposition to anarcho-capitalism, and "prominent individuals" to refer to the latter. That is because are no popular movements within anarchism against these latter strands, even while at times sharp criticism is made of them by other anarchists. I myself am fairly critical of anarcho-syndicalism, but that's far from saying I oppose it or would deny it as a flavor of anarchism.
7. Of course not. Just as rarely if ever do any two individuals in any movement ever fully agree with one another. This isn't to say that there isn't a movement, it's only to say that the movement is following after a somewhat vague aim. Many if not most anarchists do not make it appoint to associate with a specific "faction" and are content calling themselves simply "anarchist". They are also content simply identifying themselves as such. Anarcho-capitalists primarily identify with that term, because they feel a need to alienate themselves somehow from the common perception of "anarchist". That isn't to say they don't also identify with the term "anarchist", but do so more in the sense that they are the "true" anarchists rather than as a member of the same family of anarchism. My primary complaint is that the article espouses pro-market anarchism (American individualist and anarcho-capitalist) with "left-wing" anarchism (anything else, with the exception of "national anarchism"), despite an obvious estrangement between the two. Keeping them contained within the same article means a continual fight between which share of the article is given to which side in order to maintain NPOV (per the "undue weight" clause). RJII wants to expand the article, but his continual attempts at expanding into specific areas push the overall POV balance of the article further into a pro-market stance. Splitting the article would allow both sides to expand indefinitely without this concern, which I see as the most appropriate solution. Sarge Baldy 21:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you got 2) and 5) switched, so I'll proceed on that assumption. By the way, it would be a better idea not to use the #'s to number your points, as they get out of order if someone tries to respond line by line.

1) The Cambridge Dictionary (that you cherry-picked) doesn't necessarily exclude anarcho capitalism. However, your broad reading of Oxford does exclude anarcho-communism and -syndicalism, as well as mutualist organizations.

2) (In response to your 2 which responds to my 5) Anarchism is defined in part by who self-references as anarchist. If a certain strand is more popular or as popular as other strands, it merts equal emphasis.

3) Proof? I already gave you three essays by current individualist anarchists claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whilst making the same arguments as the original individualists and referencing them.

4) For disagreeing with the implications of their proposed version of anarchism? Sure. For not being anarchists? No.

5) (In response to your 5 which responds to my 2) When defining anarchism, it's only fair to look at how the original anarchists defined anarchism. You can't just pick and choose which beliefs of theirs represent all of anarchism. Many current anarchists - making up anarchism - are adamant followers of the pro-market views of people like Proudhon.

6) That prominent individuals make a claim means many people hold the view (in general) - see the NPOV guidelines. And these weren't just people critical of anarcho-syndicalism; it's people claiming it's not anarchism.

7) Yes, the movement is following a vague aim: abolition of whatever they deem an undesirable hierarchy. All anarchists I know of favor some kind of hierarchy, whether it be that of my personal possesions of your claims to them or what not. And anarcho-capitalists do self refer as anarchists when the context is clear and distinguishing from other schools is not necessary. Plus academics call an anarcho-capitalist system a system of anarchism. I'll give you three citations right now, all available on JSTOR-

Sutter, Daniel. (1995). "Asymmetric Power Relations and Cooperation in Anarchy." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 61, No. 3 January): pp. 602�13.

Hirshleifer, Jack. (1995). "Anarchy and Its Breakdown." The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 103, No. 1 (February): pp. 26�52.

Mueller, Dennis C. (1988). "Anarchy, the Market, and the State." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 54, No. 4 (April): pp. 821�30.

As for excessive promotion of markets, I've already shown you well-documented sources (like the Anarchist FAQ) showing pro-market anarchism to be affiliated and associated closely with socialist strands. I'm not going to do it again. You can't just write pro-market anarchists out of the movement. That's POV and original research. Warren was practicing market anarchism from his time store before Proudhon wrote "What is Property?". Removing reference to the mutualist strands of anarchism would be POV as well - they are certainly significant and part of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 03:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Alright, everyone. How would you like to do this: IRC, e-mail, or a restricted subpage? Andre (talk) 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

A subpage might be easiest, but what exactly is meant by restriction? Sarge Baldy 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As in, only those who are involved in the mediation can edit it. Andre (talk) 22:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

As the mediation relates to an article rather than a specific set of users, will others be allowed in afterward? Sarge Baldy 23:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. Andre (talk) 00:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer a restricted subpage, and I would like to take part. MrVoluntarist 00:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If Andre is not tied up with other things, I would motion that we move the discussion into mediation. Sarge Baldy 04:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm ready when you guys are. Andre (talk) 04:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm ready, but again, I strongly recommend Sarge Baldy pick an advocate for the reasons mentioned above. If he chooses not to, please keep in mind that he is making statements without knowledge of what has been discussed in the archives or what most anarchists believe. MrVoluntarist 13:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In a way I agree with you, and there a number of people who I feel know the history of the article and of anarchism at large more accurately and might better represent my position. However, three of the most obvious choices, albamuth, Kev, and Che y Marijuana, seem to be presently on leave from the site. However, my point of arranging this mediation isn't to argue history, and my position seems also to be largely misunderstood. I am not arguing that pro-market strands of anarchism aren't anarchism, but that they follow a fundamentally different meaning of the word anarchism (an opposition, strictly, to rational-legal government) than do traditional anarchists (an opposition to all hierarchical structures). At present, the article seems to be weighted equally between the two definitions, which although continually lauded by the pro-capitalist faction as "NPOV", this does not seem to be in line with Wikipedia NPOV policy, which states that "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Thus I would like to see the article split so as simply to disassociate each from the other, allowing both pro-market and "left-wing" anarchists to expand indefinitely on their subject matters without worry of breaching rules regarding undue weight, rather than attempting to balance both definitions within a single article. Sarge Baldy 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pro-market anarchism is definitely not even close to being a minority view. It has a long and popular tradition that includes not just Americans but mutalists like Proudhon in Europe. MrVoluntarist 00:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon is an interesting case, having been inspirational to a number of people, including individualist anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarchist communists, and Marxists. In France itself, anarchisme proudhonien is used to represent his ideas. To say that any one group is the sole legitimate heir to his ideas would be wholly inaccurate. Certainly you can say that Proudhon was for a free market, but he was also staunchly opposed to capitalism, and not even necessarily for the abolishment of the rational-legal state. Despite coining the word to describe himself, his views have served more as philosophical blueprints for the movements to follow. You say that pro-market anarchism is not a minority view, and in some sense you are not inaccurate. Anarcho-capitalism is a popular movement, particularly within the United States. But the actual question is whether the term anarchism itself more often refers to pro or anti-market strands of anarchism. Sarge Baldy 03:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The actual answer is that it refers to both. Nor are anarcho-capitalist the only proponents of markets - individualists of the American variety (i.e., the first anarchists) as well as the European variety are. Nor was Proudhon against all aspects of capitalism. Recall that capitalism is a broad term. Private property in the means of production, market exchanges, the use of money, the permissibility of selling something for more than you bought it all come to mind. To say that some movement is "against capitalism" is to imply it opposes all of them. Proudhon favored all of these in fact; he merely wanted more limited forms of them. For example, he wanted farms privately owned, but with the proviso that they be in use by the owner. American individualist anarchists - whom all socialists of the time recognized as legitimate proponents of anarchism - favored even broader forms of all four. Again, purging all mention of the kinds of anarchists that favored markets would be highly POV and original research. MrVoluntarist 04:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I suppose rather than making a separate page, we may as well conduct this here. So, to begin with, as an exercise, I'd like both factions to state what exactly they want, ideally, to happen at the close of this mediation. Andre (talk) 19:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't mediation supposed to be private? Well, I'm indifferent, so I'll state what I think there needs to be in the article in order for it to be NPOV. (I'll explicitly number the points rather than using the Wikipedia numbering feature so that people can respond line-by-line if need be.)

1) First and foremost, individualist anarchism (and with it, any notable pro-market form of anarchism) belongs in the anarchism article. It has been immensely popular, has major historical relevance, and is considered to be form of anarchism by authoritative tradional anarchist sources (the Anarchist FAQ, Peter Kropotkin, and others). Every traditional anarchist that has discussed in the archives agrees with this. The only person we've found that has denied this is Sarge Baldy.

2) Since capitalism is a broad term, which in the minds of many simply refers to markets and/or private property, rather than saying "anarchists oppose capitalism" it should state the specific aspects of capitalism that anarchists find objectionable and why, sorted by school.

3) If a notability threshold is used, it should be a fair one, and include any school of thought self-identifying as anarchist. I personally favor going by Alexa ranking. If that's used, the most popular anarchist site is lewrockwell.com, an anarcho-capitalist site. But again, I'm open to suggestions.

4) If the article mentions that any school of anarchism is not recognized as a school of anarchism by other self-described anarchists, any significant claim of this sort should be mentioned on any school of thought it applies to.

I'm sure there are more issues, but these are the most sigificant, which should get the ball rolling. MrVoluntarist 21:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I'll label these with bullets, I would not care for a direct response.

• The definition is the matter most in dispute. Leftist anarchists prefer a definition similar to that found in the historical copy found at Anarchism/historical. American individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists tend towards a definition that more simply defines anarchism as any system in the absence of a legal state. Forcing one definition or the other onto the article doesn't seem an option, and thus either an agreement needs to be reached, or the article needs to be split to accomodate both concepts.
  • If accomodating both, the article needs to satisfy the undue weight clause of NPOV policy, and reflect these topics in relation to their topic. In other words, it should reflect anarchism as it is generally seen rather than "equally" between two factions, and anarcho-capitalism should be portrayed only as prominently as it is within the context of anarchism, and not as it is in general or within American libertarian philosophy.
• The article should not remain hypocritical with respect to libertarianism, which explicitly refuses libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists considers themselves the rightful bearers of the term, and the term originated from the same place. The essential logic here is that if the argument "libertarianism usually implies an anti-socialist meaning" is acceptable then it would follow the argument "anarchism usually implies an anti-capitalist meaning" is also acceptable, so long as anarchism's implication of anti-capitalism is in equal or greater ratio to libertarianism's implication of pro-capitalism. Although from a US perspective of these terms I'm less confident this is true, I can defend that it is from a broader point of view.
• I would like to think that mediation was handled in a civil fashion. I have a point of view, and would appreciate this acknowledgement from the other side as well. I can't very well discuss with someone who continually makes statements to the opposite effect ("this article is very NPOV") because they've already shut themselves off from further discussion. Also I will not respond to any comments that I find verbally abusive. I will ignore these altogether as best as possible, and also will not unless necessary respond to direct points, accusations, or otherwise. Unleashing a volley of trivial points at me obstructs the flow of my writing, and I would prefer to discuss broader points, which I can respond to in length. Sarge Baldy 23:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this mediation is going to go anywhere if Sarge Baldy intends to ask that people not respond to his claims, nor assert that the article is NPOV in its present form. MrVoluntarist 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't trying to make an argument, just answer his question. Once you respond to my list individually, I have to respond to yours, and we end up discussing 10 different issues at the same time back and forth until someone gets frustrated with it. The problem with asserting the article is "NPOV" is that it makes any sort of compromise somewhat difficult, and leaves me battling a stone wall. In short, I don't see how this mediation is going to go anywhere when you refuse to go anywhere with it, or even acknowledge that a lot of people feel that it needs to be going somewhere. Sarge Baldy 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

See below. And please don't turn this around on me; I only said it wasn't going anywhere because you were inserting roadblocks into the discussion. MrVoluntarist 23:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this is inappropriate; but I've followed this for a while, and I humbly recommend starting with one key differnce (the definition perhaps?) rather than trying to get a handle on a list (unending? "I'm sure there are more issues, but these are the most sigificant, which should get the ball rolling.") of things to mediate. WAS 4.250 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what I mean. Tossing a list of things back and forth just makes things chaotic, and is stressful, at least to me. I'd much rather deal with one issue at a time. Sarge Baldy 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I included more than one issue was because of the possibility that someone might complain "Why didn't you mention that before?" MrVoluntarist 23:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, and I apologize if I came out aggressive above. I think that it's lot easier for both of us if we keep things simple and stay as coolheaded on the subject matter as possible. Sarge Baldy 23:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So the definition is the matter most in dispute. Would either party object to including both definitions in the lead section? Andre (talk) 21:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What two definitions are we talking about? MrVoluntarist 00:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impressions that there are two different definitions here. Andre (talk) 00:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said which two definitions. I know there are multiple definitions, but it's probably more than two. MrVoluntarist 01:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be two, then. How would you guys feel about including all the major definitions in the intro? Andre (talk) 02:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea (or maybe a separate article dicussing different conceptions of the term like is done for capitalism), but that doesn't mean the article should be about all kinds. One definition of anarchist is "chaos proponent", but the consensus from a long time ago has always been that the article should not be about this kind of anarchism, even though this ideology may constitute the majority of self-described anarchists. MrVoluntarist 12:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

End of mediation?

Because of his tendency to take arguments against his position as personal attacks, User:Sarge Baldy appears to be dropping out of mediation [19]. With no one to take the left anarchist side, it looks like the mediation has been derailed unless someone would (as I have always desired) become Sarge Baldy's advocate. MrVoluntarist 19:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think an advocate for Sarge Baldy would be fine. Andre (talk) 03:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's needed for mediation, but I am seriously disappointed that the article on Anarchism (which used to be one of the better ones on Wikipedia) turned into this mess of conflicting ideas, and downright nonsense and incorrect interpretations. Putting "anarcho-capitalism" as a link and pointing out that most Anarchists do not agree that this is a type of anarchism, and having it in a separate entry was the most fair solution. This is just pushing forward an agenda. I can't believe that gross misrepresentations (such as claiming that Proudhon supported private property -- Proudhon, who proclaimed "Property is murder" and "property is theft") are allowed into Wikipedia. If I can help with an Anarchist perspective, I will. Anarchism is opposition to rule and coercion, and this is what the vast majority of Anarchists throughout history have believed, and continue to believe. Anarcho-capitalism is a US phenomenon and its doctrine of private armies waging war on each other is hard for an Anarchist to swallow. By all mean, mention anarcho-capitalism and link to it, but don't vandalise the page on Anarchism by pushing forward an agenda. Funkybeat 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a pretty common misconception among those only tangentially familiar with Proudhon that he opposed the right of an individual to have property (private property). He's famous for saying "property is theft" but he also said "property is freedom." He thinks all individuals should have the right to keep the produce of their labor as property. "Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists." And, he believes in a market economy ...the ability of individuals to trade their property. In fact, communist anarchists arose as a result of directly rejecting Proudhon's support of private property, wages, and markets. When he says "property is theft" he is talking about the government protection of unused land. RJII 00:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is wrong to the point of being a conscious misrepresentation. Proudhon opposed private property, but not occupancy-and-use based possessions. This is something shared by all anarchists, including most communists. Meaning that factories, companies, and land are only effectively "owned" by those who are using them. Proudhon was viciously anti-capitalist, and stated "Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property." (What is Property?, pp 52). And wages? Proudhon was clearly against wage labour, because he believed that 1) all workers should be in control the means of their production (as a possession, not property) and 2) that all workers should receive equal payment for equal work. Can I have a source for your quote? Funkybeat 00:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon did not oppose wages. He opposed profit being deducted from wages. That's something that separates him from the anarcho-communists who oppose wage labor altogether. And, about him being opposed to capitalism, obviously he was opposed to capitalism --he opposed profit. I haven't seen anyone say Proudhon was a capitalist. But, he was not a communist either. RJII 03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course he wasn't a communist. He was a mutualist. But he advocated that every worker should get the FULL produce of his labour. I find it difficult to talk about a "wage" in this context. Oh, and somebody should tell you, but anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists and socialist mutualists all oppose wage labour. Funkybeat 04:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is some reading on my "misconceptions" about Proudhon. I'll give you a few quotations and reference them:

• "All have an equal right of occupancy. The amount occupied being measured, not by the will, but by the variable conditions of space and number, property cannot exist." What is Property, pp 83
• "If I show that property itself is impossible -- that it is property which is a contradiction, a chimera, a utopia; and if I show it no longer by metaphysics and jurisprudence, but by figures, equations, and calculations, -- imagine the fright of the astounded proprietor! And you, reader; what do you think of the retort?" What is Property?, pp 151
• "Property is impossible, because it is Homicide" What is Property?, p 151
• "Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself." What is Property?, pp 183
• "Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny" What is Property?, 207
• "Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; then property is impossible." What is Property?, 208
• "Finally, property is not self-existent. An extraneous cause -- either force or fraud -- is necessary to its life and action. In other words, property is not equal to property: it is a negation -- a delusion" What is Property?, pp 223

I could literally write hundreds of lines here, but I think we get the drift of what Proudhon thought about property. As for your claims that Proudhon only talked about governmental property, they are equally laughable, and here are a couple of quotations about that:

• "Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor over any thing which he has stamped as his own." What is Property? pp 153
• "By this principle, the man who takes possession of a field, and says, "This field is mine," will not be unjust so long as every one else has an equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to change his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But if, putting another in his place, he says to him, "Work for me while I rest," he then becomes unjust, unassociated, unequal. He is a proprietor." What is Property?, 225

It is clear that Proudhon is not talking about the state ownership, but about private ownership. This is very clear, as the right of increase (usury) is typical for private transaction, and not governmental earning, but I think I've proven my point. To claim that this person "supported private property" is nothing short of a lie, and is indicative of the crap that this article has become. All my references can be double checked by the mediator and others here: [20] Can I have your source and context please? Funkybeat 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You've got to understand that what's being talked about above is land. Proudhon opposed private ownership of land --actually he oppossed collective ownership as well. Land, in Proudon's eyes, could not be property. However, what could indeed be property, and should be property, is the product of an individual's labor. For Proudhon, labor is the only way to create property. If you work, you get to keep what you produce --that is your property. And, since it is your property, you may do what you wish with it, including trading it in a market. The market economy Proudhon proposes is called mutualism (economic theory). This stance of Proudhon's is what Joseph Dejacque criticized in the inception of anarcho-communism. Dejacque criticized Proudhon directly, castigating him in a letter saying that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." Proudhon is a market anarchist. RJII 03:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon indeed was a market anarchist. But markets do not equal capitalism. Proudhon despised property in all forms. His concept of ownership was called "possession" and he advocated "occupancy and use" for all things, not only land. People do trade the products of their work, but they become possessions for the people who need them -- he was very openly against stockpiling things you don't need. It is very clear from Proudhon's work that he supported possessions -- things you occupy and use -- and opposed all sorts of property -- things you don't use, but collect usury on: interest, rent, profit taken from wages, and so on. This is shared by the vast majority of anarchists, including communists. Kropotkin himself stated that people who are cultivating their own land and producing their own products will not have their possessions taken away. So in respect to property, Proudhon is the same as most anarchists, and very very very far away from the capitalist concept of property. Claiming otherwise without clearing this up is utterly misleading and dishonest. Funkybeat 03:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Proudhon opposed capitalism, since he opposed profit. And no he did not "despise property in all its forms." After all, he did say "Property is freedom." You just wouldn't be aware of that if all you've read is "What is property?" By the way the quote above: ""Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists" ...is from an essay by Proudhon called Theory of Property. It's in Selected Writings. The Anarchism article does not say that Proudhon supports capitalism --obviously he doesn't. I don't know what you're getting riled up about. RJII 03:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, your claim that "People do trade the products of their work, but they become possessions for the people who need them" is wrong. That's a communist stance .."to each according to his need." Proudhon was very vocal in his opposition to altruism and communism. For Proudhon, if an individual produces something, it's entirely his and should not be required to give it to one in need. That's why he had so much opposition from the communists. RJII 03:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, communists don't trade. In a mutualist system, you trade your products against other products you need and these new products become your possessions. As for the communism Proudhon was talking about, it has nothing to do with anarchist communism, as Proudhon was talking about state-communism, the only type of communism known at that time.Funkybeat 04:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a very singular quote from a very obscure source. I maintain that you can't find a reasonable number of quotations to present a case that Proudhon supported property, especially after he wrote a number of books against it. Some of Proudhon's writings were translated into English in a way that muddled the line between posessions and property (which is clear in his French writings). I suspect this was the case here, but I'll have to read the work first. But what I think is obvious is that Proudhon and individualist anarchists all opposed usury as in rent, interest and increase, as well as letting property go to waste through disuse, as well as the "right to abuse" one's property. So even if you call personal possessions "property", as some individual anarchists do, this "property" doesn't have any of the features commonly associated with capitalism. The text of the article should be changed to reflect this, by distinguishing between possessions (not used to exploit others) and property. Anything else is misleading. Also, maintaining that Proudhon supported private property, based on one quotation alone (while ignoring books he wrote against the concept) is misleading and dishonest.Funkybeat 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think most writers acknowledge that Prouhon supported individual ownership of things (private property). Here is a Marxist historian Albert Weisman: "By private property, Proudhon meant the ability to enjoy monopoly and privilege. Proudhon was not against private property-his famous statement that "property is robbery" simply meant that privilege was robbery, that property had come to mean not only mere possession but monopoly privileges. The private property of privilege called forth and commanded the State and the government and, in order actually to establish free competition, free trade, and free contract, the government itself, instrument of privilege and monopoly must be abolished." I honestly don't know why you think Proudhon is being represented as a capitalist in the ariticle. I don't see that all. Proudhon used the word "possession" sometimes and "property" other times. Property just means that which is owned. Private property means that which is owned by an individual. The article needs to let the read know in modern common language what Proudhon supported --individual ownership of things ..and how people use the english language something that is owned by an individual is private property. But, if you'll look at the article, just to avoid trouble like this it doesn't say "private property" --it says "individual ownership of property" to avoid semantic debates like this. RJII 04:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Proudhon did not use "property" and "possession" interchangeably. He clearly supported one type of ownership --possession (that which does not carry with it usury) and opposed the other (property). My problem is that the whole of individualist anarchism is coopted into some kind of precursor to anarcho-capitalism, when it is clear that the property Proudhon and Tucker and others spoke of had nothing to do with the capitalist property of today. Today's concept of property is closely tied to interest, rent, profit and non-use, and as such, it is wrong to claim that Proudhon (but also individualist anarchists) supported private property and thus paved the way to anarcho-capitalism. The "property" they speak of is the same "property" that anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists agree with. Once again, to claim that the person who is famous for stating "property is theft" supported property is nonsense of the highest order. "Individual ownership of property" doesn't exclude usury, doesn't exclude abuse and profit, and these points are not addressed, though central to both Proudhonian mutualism and individualist anarchism. All that's left is "they support property" and "anarcho-capitalists also support property". Funkybeat 04:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your claim is correct that the property individualist anarchists and anarcho-communists speak of is the same. However, individualists support it and anarcho-communists oppose it. The fact that one doesn't sell his property for a profit does not means it's not property. The individualist anarchists support of private property is just as strong, if not stronger, than the anarcho-capitalists' support. I'm well aware that classical individualist anarchists are opposed to capitalism. The lack of capitalism does not necessitate the lack of private property ..it necessitates the lack of profit. The most famous individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market -- that is, private property." Another famous individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner: ""The only way, in which ["the wealth of nature"] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." ...need I go on? RJII 05:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to go on, because you are missing the point. Anarcho-communists and individual anarchists all oppose the use of property for usury. They all support the use of the things you possess. The issue of selling on a free market is a matter of economic system and anarcho communists do not oppose people who do not oppress one another exchanging products. This is not only espoused by people such as Peter Kropotkin, but was also evidenced by examples in history, like in Spain, where individualists were left to control their own possessions in a way they saw fit. In fact, Spain was a good example of different types of anarchism coexisting -- collectivism, communism, syndicalism, and individuals who didn't take part in any of them. Therefore, the anarcho-communists do not oppose the "property" the individual anarchists speak of, which is even proven through history. They do oppose the "property" in the capitalist sense, as do individualist anarchists. You are claiming something completely different. Funkybeat 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware that individualists oppose profit (usury). But, your claim is absolutely false that anarcho-communists do not oppose the property that individualist anarchists speak of. Anarcho-communists oppose the individual ownership of the produce of labor: "The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme." I've been trying to tell you that that's why DeJaques and the others split from Proudhon and came up with anarcho-communism. Also individualist anarchists favor wages (that are not diminished by profit), while anarcho-communists oppose wages. Here is Tucker criticizing Kropotkine for opposing wage labor [21]. The matter of individual ownership of the produce of labor is the essential schism between individualist anarchism and anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communists believe produce of labor should be considered collectively owned (they oppose individual property --private property). RJII 05:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Individual anarchists do allow individual ownership of the means of production, BUT the people working there are effectively owning them. Individualists envisioned an artisan and independent community of small producers. Owning your plough and rake is not the same as owning Microsoft. Proudhon believed that the workers themselves should own the factories, and not work for a master. Just like individualist anarchists do not support having a boss own a factory and collect profit from the workers -- the workers are given the full produce of their work. There is a difference between the way property is handled, but the difference is very minor, and both are extremely different from capitalist ownership (which is today's meaning of the word). As for anarcho-communists not supporting individual ownership of means of production, here's quite a famous quote: "when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. . . [W]hen we see a family inhabiting a house which affords them just as much space as . . . are considered necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with that family and turn them out their house? . . . And finally, when we see a . . . cutler, or a . . . clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody.", by Peter Kropotkin himself. It is clear that the issue of usury (which is the cornerstone of capitalism) is what is common between all anti-capitalist anarchists. Communists don't want to take away possessions which don't exploit others, and individualists oppose all kinds of usury and profit. You're making up a huge difference where there is only a minor one, and ignoring a huge and important difference between anarcho-capitalism and other forms of anarchism and hiding it behind carefully selected quotes. Not honest. Funkybeat 05:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If one philosophy supports individual ownership of property and the other opposes it, I'd say that's pretty "huge." And, you're right that both individualists anarchism and communist anarchism oppose profit. The article makes that very clear as well. It seems you're arguing against a problem with the article that's just not there. I don't see it saying anywhere that the classical individualist anarchists supported capitalism. It explicitly says they oppose it in the individualist anarchist section. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and the classical anarchists is the result of their respect theories of value. The classical anarchists hold a labor theory of value, and the anarcho-capitalists hold a subjective theory of value (which is why they don't see profit as malfeasance). I agree with you that that difference is "huge" as well, and I think it's stated very clearly in the article. I think you are jumping the gun with your objections. RJII 06:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The individualist anarchist ownership is very similar to anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-collectivist and Proudhonian concept of "possession". The difference is certainly not huge. The point is, that if you are going to claim that people like Proudhon support "property", then you have to explain in no uncertain terms what that concept is. Because "property" is not something Proudhon supports. You have to explain the relationship between property and usury, that under mutualism the workers are in charge of the means of production, etc. Right now, you are taking a guy who proclaimed "property is theft" and saying he supports private property. The distinction from capitalism is not clear at all. And what on Earth does Tolstoy have to do with anarcho-capitalism, please? Funkybeat 06:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Property is indeed something Proudhon supports. Property is that which an individual has the exclusive right to use; which entails that he may keep it to himself rather than giving it to others if he wishes, even if they "need" it. He may require that they purchase that property. He indeed supports individual property. What is this about "workers in charge of the means of production"? That sounds very communist. The individualists believe that an individual may own a means of production. As far as what Tolstoy has to do with anarcho-capitalism, I have no clue. RJII 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Proudhon supports possessions. He wrote books on why possessions are good and why property is bad. In fact, the quote you keep on bringing up talks about "possessions" and not property and is likely a poor translation, because Kropotkin (when quoting Proudhon) uses the word possessions [22]. You relabel "possessions" property to push your agenda. Property implies use and abuse rights and right to usury. Funkybeat 15:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No it.s not a bad translation. Theory of Property has been translated several times. It's just a later writing than What is Property. Perhaps he just decided to use normal terminology so as to avoid confusion. In normal terminology there is no difference between a possession and a property. A property is that which is rightfully possessed. Private property is that which is rightfully possessed by an individual. Property rights do not imply profit (usury). The point is made over and over again by individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker who was a disciple of Proudhon that usury is only made possible by government-backed privilege/protection/monopoly on banking and land. The position of individualist anarchists is that if everyone was allowed to issue their own private currency and lend money and if government, and did not protect unused land, than competition would be so great that it would not be possible to generate much, if any, profit. Capitalism, for the individualists, was defined as government coercion/privilege of capital that concentrated capital in the hands of a few. This is not to say that they don't oppose capitalism as it's commonly defined today, as profit, is included in the definition. So they indeed oppose capitalism, but they don't oppose property and don't oppose private ownership of capital. Benjamin Tucker: "Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing....though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few." You accuse me if pushing an agenda. What agenda is that? Please humor me. RJII 17:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If possessing a thing without usury, interest, abuse and exploitation is property, then all anarchists believed in such property. And they all opposed the capitalist property. Right now, it looks like only a thin line divides capitalists and individual anarchists, while there is a chasm between, say, Proudhon and Kropotkin, which is incorrect. Even anarcho-communists stated that people would be allowed to keep their farms as long as they aren't exploiting others. Bringing in Marx is cheeky, but ridiculous. Anarcho-communists are not Marxists. Funkybeat 17:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a huge divide between individualist anarchists and communist anarchists. That's why individualists anarchists are not communist anarchists. The difference is that anarcho-communists oppose individual ownership of the produce of labor. An anarcho-communist believes in collective ownership of the produce of labor. In anarcho-communism, one who labors does not own his produce, but may use it (it being part of the collective property), and only use as much as he needs, being ethically obligated to give his surplus production to others who need it. In individualist anarchism, the individual actually owns his produce, having absolute dominion over it, with no ethical obligation to share it with others. He may accumulated it if he wishes, keeping it from those who may "need" it. In anarcho-communism, it's "to each according to his needs." In individualist anarchism, it's "to each according to his production." Proudhon: "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained." The difference is night and day. In anarcho-communism wealth would be evenly-distributed, as it is collectively owned. In individualist anarchism, wealth distribution is uneven as production would vary among the individuals. Benjamin Tucker: "... there are people who say: 'We will have no liberty, for we must have absolute equality. I am not of them. If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living." RJII 17:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

the difference is mainly due to the fact that Tucker talked about small-scale production, an artisan community and individual farmers. As we saw, Kropotkin has no problem in letting these people keep what they produce. But especially in the case of large factories and large industrial production, no product is the result of one person. Proudhon acknowledges this: "That all production being necessarily collective, the laborer is entitled to a share of the products and profits commensurate with his labor". It is because of this that the anarcho-communists insist that all products of labour are social. Proudhon believed this as well, but thought that a free trade in a mutualist system would result in the best spread of products around the world, and that all wages should therefore be equal. However, both sides are equally opposed to capitalist property, the one that is meant by today's word "property". Mutualism and anarcho-communism can (and did) coexist with each other. Capitalism cannot coexist with any anarchist school of thought. Funkybeat 22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon didn't think "all wages should be equal," but that equal labor should receive equal wages. If you labor more than the next guy, you get higher wages. Capitalism can indeed exist in an anarchism. Contemporary individualist anarchists acknowledge this. For instance, contemporary anti-capitalist individualist anarchist Joe Peacott says: " An anarchist society, based on voluntary agreement between autonomous individuals, would probably be a mix of communities and individuals who follow different economic systems, some communist, some capitalist, some individualist or mutualist." [23] If two people enter into an agreement where one of the parties agrees to allow the other a profit, no individualist anarchist is going to coercively intervene to stop that. The classical individualists just think it's foolish to enter into such an agreement --an agreement to have one's labor "stolen." Now, the classical individualist anarchist argument is that if government allowed everyone to issue their own currency and engage in banking that there would be much more competition in lending capital, driving down interest rates to, or near to, zero. Business would flourish and there would be so much demand for employees that there would be little or no opportunity for employers to bargain to retain profit. Tucker himself had a savings account, but he said that if you put your money in a savings account, you're a userer ..you're being paid without laboring. His position was that people were, in a sense, driven to usury because of government. The position is that all possibility of engaging in usury would disappear if government privilege disappeared. The prime enemy was government. The individualist anarchists defined capitalism as government-backed privilege for capital. They didn't define it as private ownership of capital --which they supported. Now, this is not to say that they don't oppose capitalism --they do oppose it, because, though capitalism today is not defined as government-backed privilege for capital, it is defined as including profit. But of course capitalism (when not defined as government-backed privilege) can theoretically exist in anarchism, as long those engaged in it engage in it voluntarily. As far as mutualism and anarcho-communist coexisting, that's theoretically possible as well, as long as the mutualist isn't forced to share the product of his labor and isn't forcefully prevented from receiving wage. And, an anarcho-communist would have to allow others private property, though he and his communist associates would agree with each other to collective the results of their labor. RJII 00:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You conflate wages with salaries. Chris Acheson 11:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Right. The whole dispute hinges on the difference between being paid by the hour and being paid by the week or month. MrVoluntarist 16:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In this case, it does. Because even while earning the same wages,the person who labours more will get more. Proudhon, just like Individualist Anarchists, believed that the only fair wage was the full produce of one's labour. You may call this wage if you wish, but it is 100% different from having a boss who takes your products and gives you back a fraction. But the point of the whole discussion is that individualists, just like Proudhon, envisioned a community of small, mostly independent producers, who own their own means of production. This sort of property does not exploit, and as such is considered a possession by Proudhon and his followers. The difference is between exploitative and non-exploitative property, and all anarchists, from Spooner and Tucker to Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, and pretty much any anarchist you wish to name, support this sort of "property" -- also called possession. So to claim that individual anarchists support property (just like capitalists), while "communists" (I assume this includes mutualists, syndicalists, collectivists, primitivists and who knows what else) deny ALL property, including possessions, is absolutely incorrect. Even in an anarcho-communist commune, you would have things you would call your own, as long as you are not exploiting anyone. And you could even leave the commune and produce your own stuff with the tools which you possess (own) and nobody would bother you. Funkybeat 01:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with being paid by the hour versus being paid by the week or month? I'd love to respond to everything you just posted, but I have no intention of rewarding people who dodge my questions. MrVoluntarist 08:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As it says in the Wage article, "A wage is the amount of money paid for some specified quantity of labour." RJII stated that "Proudhon didn't think 'all wages should be equal,' but that equal labor should receive equal wages." Chris Acheson 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should advocate....?

Again, trying to state a position by logical argument ends with the opposition sniping at minor points, relentlessly trying to "win" irrelevent semantic differences, until the confusions overwhelm and the overall picture is missed. Notice first the quibbling over Proudhon's definition of property, then a segue into "wage labor", then distractions over the qualifications of "free trade" and so on and so on, all misdirecting the real issue, which is that over 99% of people in this world who call themselves anarchists are stridently opposed to capitalism. The tendency to ignore the overall picture and push an agenda, despite all claims of being "objective", is what characterizes someone who edits in bad faith. Time and time again the so-called "left anarchists" have conceded factual points here and there, continuing the argument within reason, allowing concessions to the anarcho-capitalist position where it is warranted, but proponents of the latter only illustrate the saying, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. This is the reason why mediation is needed. --albamuth 19:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So "99%" of anarchists are opposed to capitalism, aye? What percentage are are opposed to anarcho-capitalism then? I would guestimate that about half of the anarchists out there are anarcho-capitalists. Again, this is a guess. I suppose you have a source for your 99% claim. RJII 19:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists rarely consider themselves "anarchists", they overwhelmingly identify primarily as libertarians. Certainly if you simply ask an anarcho-capitalist if they're an anarchist, they'll have to clarify their pro-market stance in some way or another. In the cases where they do identify as anarchist, they use a very narrow definition of the term (simple anti-statism) so as to qualify, and generally regard other anarchists as going excessively overboard from that definition. Other anarchists can simply identify as anarchist, because the suggestion behind that word is an opposition to social hierarchy, although like any other social movement different groups and different individuals have a different approach towards such an end result. The problem with anarcho-capitalism is its complete disagreement with both the message behind such a movement and the end result. The article in its current state exaggerates conflict within anarchism by dividing it into various "schools", an unrecognized subcategorization of anarchism arrived to out of nowhere, and a tool for pretending there is no cohesion. Sarge Baldy 20:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists define anarchism the same way traditional individualist anarchists do. For example, Benjamin Tucker defines it as: "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." There is not an anarcho-capitalist out there that would disagree with that definition. If someone says simply they're an "anarchist" it doesn't tell you much. That's why there are anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.. These doctrines get more specific in how one believes a society should voluntarily operate. RJII 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The IWW numbers over a thousand, and it is a stridently anti-capitalist organization [24]. I daresay over half the membership describes themselves as "anarchist" (I don't recall meeting a Wobbly who doesn't). There used to be a Yahoo group, called, "The Anarchist Commune" which I participated in that had at its height around 800 members. I've seen blac blocs so huge they took up several city blocks and half an hour to march by. This is just in the US, where anarchism is the least popular. Ask any Italian anarchist if they are "against capitalism" and they'll laugh in your face. The only anarcho-capitalist that claimed to be so on this site so far has been User:Hogeye. Do "anarcho-capitalists" have events? Do they have conventions? Do they have organizations? If there are 50 anarcho-capitalists in the US, that still wouldn't make them over 1%. Yet where is there evidence of there being at least 50 anarcho-capitalists (not Libertarians)? --albamuth 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Objective. Empirical. Sourced.

As a complete outsider (I think all forms of anarchism are castles in the air), might I mention the success science has with objective empiricism. Actual real life cases. Anyone can claim anything. Real life has a way of bringing the castles "down to Earth". WAS 4.250 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a discussion on which theory is "better" or has more merit, but about the factual correctness and NPOV of the article. And the article is twisted in a way where thinkers' positions are completely misrepresented and minor theories are presented as major.Funkybeat 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a standard utilizing priciples of objectiveness could be agreed to. I'm big on quoting and sourcing, myself. But any agreed on objective standard would be helpful, I would think. WAS 4.250 11:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Power

Individualist and communist anarchists both seek equality of power (being the fundamental component of rulership) to the fullest extent possible among all individuals. They disagree on how individuals should/would organize themselves. Anarcho-capitalists condone the holding of landlord and employer positions by individuals. Such positions grant those individuals some degree of power over their tenants and employees. Thus, anarcho-capitalists do not seek equality of power. This shows that the difference between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists is more fundamental than the difference between individualist and collectivist anarchists. Chris Acheson 11:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The sort of "power" that exists in the context of a free-market system is that which arises spontaneously, rather than being imposed in an artificial, coercive way. It would take artificial coercive force to prevent such relationships from arising, as the socialists/communists want. *Dan T.* 11:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A free market does not create power differences, as by definition all transactions must be non-coercive. Eliminating landlord/tenant and employer/employee relationships doesn't necessarily entail the use of force. Individualist anarchists want to eliminate said relationships as well, so I don't really see what your point is, other than straw-man communist-bashing. Chris Acheson 11:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

One could go further and say that anarcho-capitalists seek private states. Which would be an oxymoron. But if a person has complete right to set laws on his land and in his companies, and is protecting this privilege through private armies, then it's hard to talk about "anarchy" in any sense of the word. Regardless of whether this power arose "spontaneously" or not, the result is a state, much like current states arose "spontaneously". But I think it's obvious that there is a vast chasm between "anarcho-capitalism" and anarchism proper, which is not the point. The point is that the article which states that Proudhon supported property, that Tolstoy was a capitalist and that the only difference between anarcho-capitalists and individual anarchists is LTV/STV, is a complete waste of Wikipedia space. This article needs some serious rehaul, and used to be good before hundreds of people gave up trying to protect it from POV vandalism. Funkybeat 16:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon did support property. He said so himself. RJII 03:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

He supported a very limited subset of property. In fact, he rejected everything capitalist about property. So did Kropotkin, but you're not listing him as a bridge between anarchism and capitalism. Funkybeat 01:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon did support (a limited form of) property, and Tolstoy was, later in life, a very adamant proponent of Georgism, which draws heavily from capitalism. (It's basically pure capitalism, but with socialization of land values.) I can provide extensive documentation of this if you like. Proudhon and the American individualists also supported private police (and, in Tucker's case, repression of uppity workers), so if you're going to call that a "private state" and attack ancaps for supporting it, you're attacking individualists too. MrVoluntarist 16:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Individual anarchists do not support land ownership, only use rights of land. Therefore, they cannot possibly, under any definition, have a private state. This, on the other hand, is exactly what Murray Rothbard wants -- private ownership of land, and complete dominion over this space, enforced by private police. This is different from protecting your house and life.Funkybeat 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not. Individualists advocated private police to protect your land, even if someone else "needed" it. The only difference is that individualists required that the land be in use, ancaps do not. And again, distinguishing between ownership and use-rights is a fringe view that needs to be labled as an opinion, not presented as fact on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "Property is theft" is in fact support for property and means "a specific type of land ownership is bad, but all other property is good" is not only a fringe view, but also original research and extremely POV and, as such, does not belong in Wikipedia.Funkybeat 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Original research? Every serious scholar who has studied the topic recognizes that Proudhon believed certain existing forms of private property were illegitmate, without opposing private property as such. Just a quote from Tucker here: "It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that 'property is robbery' [Know anyone like that, Funkybeat? -MV] to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products." And please don't claim that communists support possession of the product of your labor. They don't. They support your possessing what you need and nothing else. And if you're going to turn around and claim that they only impose that rule on people who consent to communism, realize that anarcho-capitalist even agree with them on that point! MrVoluntarist 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Proudhon opposed the concepts of communism (statist control) which were around in 1840. This doesn't change anything. You are committing a fallacy by equating state-communists like Lenin with Kropotkin et al. and since anarcho-communist communes are voluntary to join and people can choose to join them or not, people DO indeed have complete control over what happens to the fruits of their labour. But it's a huge leap from that to "all property is legitimate except for land".Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I know several people whose only knowledge of Proudhon is "property is robbery", but having read several of his books, I am not one of them so you can shove your ad-hominems up your ass. His dislike of Communism is expanded on in the very book in which he says "property is robbery", and if you had read it, you would have known this. Funkybeat 20:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I did know that. Ther reason I brought up the quote was because you kept acting shocked that Proudhon actually supported a kind of proerty.MrVoluntarist 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon did not merely oppose state communism. He and his intellectual heirs (like Tucker) opposed even the anarchist variants. Now, once again, if you're going to claim that communists would ONLY impose communism on people that wanted it, you're wrong, because that would make their position equivalent to that of individualist anarchists an anarcho-capitalists. And of course, it would mean that we have anarcho-communism today since everyone that wants it practices it. And, as I said before, you're wrong that communists want you to keep the product of your labor. They want "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That's "need", not "productive capability". MrVoluntarist 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Tucker opposed anarcho-communism. Proudhon didn't, and you'll have to provide me with a source that he was opposed to the theories of Kropotkin and Malatesta. He did correspond with Marx and was very supportive of his goals, so this is quite an outlandish claim. As for "communists" imposing stuff on others, you are muddying the waters again. Yes, communists like Lenin would indeed do this, but they are not anarchists. Anarcho-communists such as Malatesta, Berkman, Kropotkin and others not only openly stated that they want no such thing, but the anarcho-communist collectives in the Spanish revolution demonstrate this in action. And I can quote if you wish. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And I still don't understand what Tolstoy is doing under anarcho-capitalism, even if he was a Georgist in later life. He's even further from anarcho-capitalist philosophy than most other anarchists, considering his radical opposition to all violence and tax. Funkybeat 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

He is not. Anarcho capitalism specifies upper bounds on the use of violence. If you advocate even lower upper bounds, you agree with the higher upperbounds as well, and hence anarcho-capitalism. If this confuses you (and it does), think of it this way: Ziggles believe you should not eat lollipops on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Zoggles believe you should never eat lollipops. Is a Zoggle a type of ziggle? Yes. Oh, and here's three links to a pacifist anarcho-capitalists who quotes Tolstoy in defense of his views: [25][26] [27] MrVoluntarist 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are a complete pacifist, then you do not believe in protecting your property through violence, thus dismissing the whole concepts of defense agencies, armies, etc. Tolstoy would not use violence even to save a life, and he sure wouldn't use it to protect his property from the poor.

You're totally ignoring my point. Anarcho-capitalists do not "support private police". They oppose violence beyond private police. If you oppose even the private police, you agree with anarcho-capitalists. See the zoggle/ziggle example again. MrVoluntarist 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but opposing violence beyond police is exactly what every state does for internal affairs.Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the argument apparently flew right over your head. Once again, anarcho-capitalists believe that violence beyond a specific type is not okay. If you don't even accept that level of violence, you're an ancap. See here: [28]. And, to make your point truly irrelevant, traditional anarchists favor violence in defense of possessions. Unless of course, you think you have to be a pure pacifist to be an anarchist. MrVoluntarist 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

By that logic, if you support less violence than Mao Zedong, you are Mao Zedong? No, sorry, but insisting on pacifism and allowing violence are very different. Traditional anarchists favour violence in self-defense, and as possessions are things you USE, you need violence to take them away in the first place. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And none of these links is the least bit relevant when labelling Tolstoy an anarcho-capitalist. The point is that without the threat of violence, capitalism and wealth imbalance cannot work, and Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists acknowledge this. Why put Tolstoy in with anarcho-capitalists when he didn't have almost anything in common with them, other than supporting Georgist economics, which is similar to capitalism? I'd like better sources, please. And I'd like sources that say that Georgism was Tolstoy's ideal for a free society, and not just a way to get there. Funkybeat 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

So you're holding him to a higher standard than other anarchists, who advocate specific systems (like communism or syndicalism) as a means to the same kind of free society? Or are you seriously disputing that Tolstoy was an avid Georgist? That he planned to meet with Henry George, had George not died during his mayorial campaign? That he wrote letters to Tsar Nikolas II demanding not that he abolish the government and endorse non-violence, but that he implement Georgism? I won't give sources unti you're very specific about what you want the sources to say, else you can always turn around and say they're "not good enough". MrVoluntarist 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Christian Anarchists and Individual Anarchists, as well as Proudhon were not revolutionaries, unlike syndicalists, communists, collectivists, and many others. This means that they didn't think a change would happen overnight. This means that the state (which is an oppressive institution opposed to anarchism in every way) would have to be weakened until the point where it disappeared. Therefore people like Proudhon (property to defend against the state), Tucker (owning a shop) and Tolstoy (Georgism) supported policies which would protect them and their freedom from the state and weaken it until the time has come where state doesn't exist anymore. What I want to see is that Tolstoy believed that Georgism without a state is his ultimate goal. Honestly, I don't know that much about Tolstoy's teachings, enlighten me. Don't tell me that he wanted to introduce Georgism into Tsarist Russia, because this only shows that he sought to combat the state using Georgism, just like Spanish Revolution shows that the war against Fascists was a way to achieve Anarchy, and NOT that syndicalists believe you should fight wars all the time in Anarchy.Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't think it's telling that whenever Tolstoy wrote to the Tsar, he NEVER asked him to renounce violence or abolish his government, but instead asked him to implement Georgism? That Tolstoy never reconciled his adamant support of Georgism with his pacifism until challenged? As for your other point, all anarchists believe in the same final goal. Syndicalism, communism, etc. are in a sense, themselves means to that society. Picking Georgism makes no fundamental difference. My view (I know this doesn't count for anything, but I can back it up with evidence) is that Toltoy wanted a world that implemented Georgism, but with non-violent enforcement. And as a final note, I'm not saying I necessairly defend the referencing of Tolstoy in the ancap section; my point is just that you're overstating his differences with ancaps. MrVoluntarist 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If nobody has a clue what Tolstoy is doing in that section, then we should remove him from there. Especially because that sentence is so ridiculously tacked on without any sense.Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the classical individualists adhered to a labor theory of value and the anarcho-capitalists adhere to a subjective theory is not at all trivial. Any differences that exist (and there are significant differences), exist solely as a result of their respective theories of value. RJII 03:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't we call this limited form of property "possessions", just like Proudhon did, and explain the concept instead of insisting that he was a proponent of private property (which he wasn't). As for individualists, I am not an individualist and I don't agree with all of their teachings. There is still a vast difference between the protection against physical attack and theft (as much as I hate the concept of property) and the amount of force anarcho-capitalists advocate. In the anarcho-capitalist writeup here on wikipedia, Somalia is praised as a working anarcho-capitalist society, because rich people can pay warlords to fight for them. I don't remember Tucker advocating this.213.39.173.14 01:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"Possessions" in the sense that Proudhon used the term would, today, by ordinary people, be considered a form of property. The distinction you are making (between property and possession) is a fringe view, and thus, by Wikipedia standards, it should not be used, but rather, the common, present meaning of property should be. As long as it is also mentioned that Proudhon attacked something he called "property" (property in unused land), this should be okay. If we just state outright that he's "against property" people will go away with the impression that he agrees with communists. Next, I'm not sure about the sincerity of your rejection of the concept of property. If you built, say, a boat, with your own two hands, and I sunk it (though did not take it away from you), you probably wouldn't be too happy. That feeling is your support of property. (And please, please don't waste my time with questions like "Why would you destroy my boat in the first place?" The question is a hypothetical - look it up. It's designed to test the limits of what you believe.) Next, of course Tucker didn't advocate what's going on in Somalia. That's because it started 50 years after he died. He did, however, support the right of people to buy defense services for protection of life and property like they do in Somalia. MrVoluntarist 03:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is silly.

Tough talk for a guy who has repeatedly spoken falsities. MrVoluntarist 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if I created a boat with my own two hands, sold it to you, and you sunk it, I wouldn't be too happy. The more creativity was involved in creation, the less happy I would be. Funkybeat 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. If you really felt that way, you would not sell the boat except with a contract that I not destroy it. But then, you wouldn't really be selling it, you'd be renting usage rights. MrVoluntarist 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Now who's coming up with cop-outs? How do you know what I would and wouldn't do? Do you think if I destroyed Mona Lisa Gioconda, that Leonardo wouldn't care? Funkybeat 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo's dead, so of course he doesn't care. But once you start caring what dead people want, then you have believe in inheritance, and there goes most of your anarchist philosophy (except for Proudhon, but it's not like you adhere to his beliefs anyway). And I know what you would and wouldn't do because of a concept called revealed preference. MrVoluntarist 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I took Leonardo for an example of an artist everybody knows. But if you want to lead silly arguments, then let me name a living person: John Andrews and Webb Zerafa, the architects of the CN tower. Do you think they would care if you knocked down the CN tower? After all, they got paid for it.Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That case is blurry because they knowingly sold it to people they could trust not to let it get destroyed. Their sale thus did not show indifference toward the outcome of the tower. Let's not stray to far from the point I was trying to make. You like, most people, like ancaps, don't really oppose the idea that you alone should decide when to part with the product of your labor. MrVoluntarist 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming too much. I have no problems with my belongings being used by others when I don't need them. Hence no property, but possessions. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tucker supported defense of one's belongings and life, but did not support enforcement of arbitrary laws on your land.

"I don't want you on my land anymore because I don't like you." is an arbitrary law. Tucker clearly supported that. MrVoluntarist 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as you are using the land, it's a completely different issue. Even in an anarcho-communist commune, people can evict someone out of a house if they don't want to share it with them. Yet nobody claims that Kropotkin or Malatesta paved the way for anarcho-capitalism. Funkybeat 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you're right about communists giving people the power to evict others despite their "needing" the shelter, it is absolutely not a completely different issue. You claimed that Tucker did not support arbitrary enforcement of laws on your land. Kicking someone off for no reason whatsoever is enforcement of an arbitrary law. Ergo, you are wrong. That you agree with enforcement of a arbitrary law does not make it non-arbitrary. MrVoluntarist 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A house is not "land", it is a product of labour, and thus a possession. And as long as you possess a thing, you get to decide how it is used. Just because I object to you taking my watch from me while I'm wearing it doesn't mean that I'm a capitalist, or enforcing an arbitrary law. Or support random people moving into me and my wife's bedroom. Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

We were talking about land, not houses. And you haven't established a difference, except that you favor one and not the other. You original claim that Tucker did not support enforcement of arbitrary laws on your land is therefore disproven. MrVoluntarist 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Tucker did not support arbitrary laws on his land. He wouldn't support public rape on somebody else's land, for example. He thought he could make people leave his land, which was his possession, which means he was USING the land. If other people's presence interfered with his work, then that's different from setting arbitrary laws on land you own, but don't even use. The same with houses. The houses are used. People's intrusion is a violent interference with your own life. That's the concept of possessions. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As for modern English language, everyone knows what possessions are. Everyone understands that a car is a possession, but Wal-Mart isn't a possession. Funkybeat 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone make this distinction except socialist anarchists. I have never heard a news report say, for example, "The CEO was forced to give up his possessions, such as his house in the Hamptons, as well as his property, such as his shares in Walmart." The shares and the house are referenced as possessions in the mainstream. The shares and the house are referenced as property in the mainstream. The average person does not classify *things* as being "exploitative" or "non-exploitative". MrVoluntarist 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You're intentionally missing the point. If I say that I lost my possessions in a flood, most people will know what this refers to. That I lost my car and my house, but not my patents. People DO know what possessions are about, but this difference is not important in capitalism so it is obviously not expanded on in newspaper articles. But it is expanded on in anarchist theory, and as such it has to be explained. Otherwise, it's like explaining Marxism and arguing that "proleteriat" and "bourgeoisie" are both people and today we don't make the distinction. Funkybeat 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about patents? We were talking about Wal-mart. Let's change topics after we've handled the original matter. When you say the distinction is "not important in capitalism", what you really mean is "the distinction is rarely made". Hence, it's a fringe anarchist view (and rather non-sensical, but that's a separate issue). The article does go into the distinction (as much as the vagueness of the concept allows) but it is also necessary to say in plain English what is meant. If the average person would call what Proudhon supported "property", there's nothing wrong with describing it as such, as long as the nuances of his view are explained, which they are. Contrary to your analogy, it would be like explaining Marxism by explaining his terminology, but also mentioning the mainstream terms for what he described (like "middle-class" and "working class"). MrVoluntarist 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the distinction is rarely made. It is not adequately explained that the type of property all anarchists support (with small variations) is vastly different from that which most capitalists support and which most people are familiar with. And this should be explained very clearly in an article on anarchism.Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, your POV that there's a huge moral difference should not be inserted except as being attributed to anarchists. There's nothing wrong with using plain language that the average person understands to explain what Proudhon really suppored. MrVoluntarist 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The average person will not understand at all, because he/she will be misled by thinking Proudhon supported property in today's meaning of the word. And this he didn't do at all. His concept of ownership was things you occupy and use, and products of your own labour. Furthermore, the article is wrong in stating that by "property", Proudhon only meant land, and I provided quotes for that too ("manufacturer", etc.) It is an intentional distortion with the sole purpose of justifying the inclusion of "anarcho"-capitalism. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, everyone knows that property today brings rent, interest and profit in terms of wage labour, and that property involves giving people orders. So insisting on property without clearing it up is misleading. Funkybeat 01:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a fringe anarchist view (and nonsensical to boot). Possessions also involve giving people orders "Fix my toilet in this manner or do not fix it." "Leave my house or I will forcibly remove you." Those are orders involving things you recognize as possessions. Of course, what you really meant was that exploitative kinds of property/possessions involve giving orders, but you're smart enough to realize most people don't make that distinction so it doesn't help your case. And on a side note, that's something that's always confused me about anarchists. Yes, bosses "give orders" ... because they're hiring you to accomplish a task! If you didn't do what they wanted, your services wouldn't be worth very much! It's like saying "I want to sell you oranges, you bastard that made me harvest them." They "order you around" in the exact same sense that you "order" a plumber to fix your toilet in exchange for pay. But that's another matter... MrVoluntarist 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Property doesn't include rights to rent? Money doesn't include right to interest? If a person buys something, he doesn't know he can rent it, or deposit the money into a savings account? Is this your argument?

No, that's not what I'm arguing here (though of course individualists claim that). If you read what I posted, you would know that. MrVoluntarist 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I said that most people consider rent, interest and profit to go hand in hand with property, you said that was a fringe view, and now you're claiming exactly the opposite? Now stop focussing on "ordering around" and let's see if we can agree on the others. Do most people consider earning interest on property and renting it to be their right coming with their property? Do most people consider interest they get from their property normal? Or the rent they get for their appartment? Please tell me they don't. Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Claiming the opposite? Stop focusing on "ordering around"? If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that that's the specific part I was objecting to! Now why don't you start focusing on it so you can see why your claim is false: possessions involve "giving orders" in the exact sense that property does.

No, they don't. Having a watch doesn't give me the same rights to "order around" as owning a factory, or land, or a huge company. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But, I want to nevertheless address your point. No, I don't think people exclicity feel that "property entitles me to interest". They thing "property entitles me to decide how it's used" and as a consequence that results in voluntary exchanges that involve profit and interest. MrVoluntarist 00:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words, they feel that usury is a natural feature of property, exactly the opposite of Proudhon.Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And it is obvious that you do not understand much about anarchism if you believe that most anarchists envision a society where you pay plumbers and then give them orders. Kind of explains the state of the article, really. Funkybeat 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you're just revealing ignorance of individualists. They totally supported hiring the labor services of others, at the very least for personal services. That's "giving orders" in the exact sense that a "boss" gives orders. You do the job as requested, or you don't get the compensation. MrVoluntarist 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

And individualists are a vast minority among anarchists. Clearly syndicalists, communists, collectivists, primitivists and most others don't believe in hiring plumbers. Funkybeat 14:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but that wasn't your argument! (nor the argument of 99% of traditional anarchists who have argued this topic, nor the Anarchist FAQ, both of which claim that individualist anarchists are legit anarchist) You were claiming individualists are real anarchists, consistent with other kinds of anarchists. Now you're not. Make up your mind. MrVoluntarist 00:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I said that "vast majority of anarchists don't believe in hiring plumbers". Some individualists do. The vast majority of anarchists (most of whom are not individualists) do not. What's confusing? Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist is correct. Proudhon called it "possession" early on in What is Property, but called it "property" in later essays such as Theory of Property. This is just semantics. The fact is he supported a right of individuals to own the produce of their labor. Any person familiar with the english language calls that which someone owns, "property" (which is probably why he switched to the standard terminology). Sure, you can say in an article that he called it "possession" but I'm going to add in there that he also called it "property" so the reader knows that we're talking about ownership. And, here's a quote from Benjamin Tucker on private defense: "Defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand...that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." RJII 03:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon always claimed that possessions were the only justified form of property, even in his early works. That doesn't mean that the distinction isn't important. Believing in the right to own the products of your labour is common to ALL socialists, the only difference is how these are shared/distributed. The reason he later talked about the power of property against the state is because in his later life, he wasn't sure that state could be totally eliminated. Furthermore, like individualist anarchists, he was reformer and not a revolutionary. So he believed that the state would go away slowly, and in the meantime, one would need property (possessions) to combat the state. However, his goal, his utopia, was clear: a society in which the workers own their own means of productions, through co-operatives or individual labour, and in which there are no huge differences in wealth or social conditions. This is as far away from anarcho-capitalist view of property as can be. Funkybeat 01:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, he was an individualist and advocated that individuals be allowed to own the produce of their labor as individuals. If anarcho-communists choose to own product of their labor collectively, of course he's not going to oppose that. To be compatible with individualist anarchism, the anarcho-communist has to allow the non-anarcho-communist to have private property. That's the question the individualists ask so frequently --are anarcho-communists going to allow people to have private property?

The only people who ask these questions are people who do not know much about anarchism. Both the theory and the practice of social anarchism, including anarcho-communism, shows that people who do not want to join a commune are left with all of their non-exploitative possessions intact. In Spain, they even got free electricity and water from the commune to boot. Funkybeat 00:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, some famous individualists ask this very question in their essays. I can find a quote if you need one. So, I suppose your rebuttal is just that they "don't know much about anaarchism." RJII 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of them didn't know all there is to know about communist anarchism. Pooling of resources, like a commune, is voluntary, and therefore anarchist. Funkybeat 19:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And, trade among people who voluntarily agree to terms that include profit (anarcho-capitalism) is therefore anarchist as well. Individualist anarchists recognize this, which is why they oppose using coercion to stop it. I personally haven't seen anarcho-communists say that they would allow others to engage in anarcho-capitalism. If they are truly anarchists, then they will allow that. RJII 15:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists will allow you to do whatever you wish as long as you are not harming others. This doesn't make you anarchists. If Kim Jong Il set up a voluntary kingdom where he engaged in voluntary decapitations, this still wouldn't be anarchism. And capitalism is exploitative by nature, because it tends towards centralisation of power and capital, and sooner or later to great power differences. When people rule others, that's not anarchy. Funkybeat 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists don't oppose anarcho-communism either if no one is forced to relegate their produce as collective property. Again, the sole reason for the difference between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are their different theories of value. All the differences stem from that. Private property for individualists is identical to private property for the classic individualist anarchists in regard to the produce of labor.

First of all, you have to stop this false dichotomy between individualists and "communists". Not all anarchists who are not individualists are communists. There are also social mutualists, syndicalists, collectivists and others. And they all believe that you should have the fruit of your labour, because this is the essence of socialism. The only thing they disagree is how this should be distributed -- market, work vouchers, free sharing, planning industrial federations, or something else. An anarcho-communist is a person who wants to live in a commune where all products are freely shared. This doesn't mean that he wants to deny people outside this commune to keep what they produce. So they believe in the same type of property as the individualists and Proudhon -- possessions. Even in a commune, you have "your" house where you have "your" furniture and are left alone. Funkybeat 00:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists also believe you should own the fruits of your labor. Anarcho-capitalists are just individualist anarchists who have adopted a subjective theory of value and dropped the labor theory of value. RJII 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they are simply anti-capitalists who dropped the "anti" part. Cute.Funkybeat 19:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What is different is what objects may be private property --that which is not a produce of labor is not private property for the classic individualists --land itself. (Though there are exceptions, as a few classic individualists support ownership of land itself as long as it's not sold for a profit). By the way, I don't know if you're aware, but even Rothbard believes that its unethical to claim unowned property by any other method than occupation or use. RJII 15:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot more to it. Natural resources, for example, are also not result of labour, and they are crucial. Intellectual property is another "property" which doesn't exist in anarchism. And once again, you are completely ignoring the circumstances and context. If you build a plough, it can become your means of production. But this doesn't lead to large industries and factories with bosses, because these basically didn't exist in Tucker's time in the US. Individualists didn't believe in exploitation. Neither did any other anarchists. No anarchists believed in any sort of oppression. All anarchists were anti-capitalist. All anarchists were socialist. All of them believed workers should keep the full produce of their labour and opposed usury. All of them, whether individualist, collectivist, classical anarchists, communists, syndicalists, primitivists, feminists, you name it -- all of them thought like this, and this is why anarchism is one theory. You can't come 200 years later and try to say that a theory which is all about exploitation, rule, usury, capitalism, profits, is anarchist, and try to justify it with selected quotes and arguing semantics. Funkybeat 00:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you're saying to be an anarchist you have to adhere to a labor theory of value. Nonsense. There is no such requirement. And, you don't have to be opposed to intellectual property to be an anarchist either. Some 19th century individualist anarchists even supported it. Lysander Spooner wrote: The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas What's going to be your rebuttal here ..that this well-known anarchist is therefore not an anarchist? RJII 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In order to be an anarchist, you must be opposed to all sort of rule and oppression, including capitalism. It's very simple. All anarchists are socialists, and all anarchists are libertarians (in the traditional, lowercase 'l' meaning). "anarcho"-capitalism is the attempt to take an anti-capitalist theory with almost 200 years of history, and inject capitalism into it. And the way to do this is by taking works of people who were anti-capitalists and self-proclaimed socialists, and claiming that they were precursors to capitalism. Funkybeat 19:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement that to be an anarchist you have to oppose anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism, as the individualist anarchists define it. Individualists anarchists defined it as government-backed privilege for owners of capital. Contemporary individualist anarchist (in the classical anti-profit tradition) Larry Gambone notes this when he says that when "classical anarchists" speak of capitalists, they are referring to "those who had gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government" whereas modern libertarian capitalists refer to capitalism as "free exchange" and oppose "government aided business." ((Any Time Now Spring 1998 No. 4) Anarcho-capitalists also oppose this. RJII 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Social anarchists do NOT believe in forcing "communism" on others

Since this particular theory seems to be very popular around here, I want to dispell it completely:

• "free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others." Malatesta: Life and Ideas, p. 103
• "Collectivism could be imposed only on slaves, and this kind of collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below." Bakunin: Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200
• "when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than be can cultivate himself, we consider that we must not give him the right of keeping that soil for himself, leaving it uncultivated when it might be cultivated by others, or of making other cultivate it for his benefit." Kropotkin: Act for Yourselves, p. 104

As for the social anarchists' opposition to property, just like Proudhon and Tucker, they oppose property used to exploit others, and support personal ownership of possessions which do not exploit others. Here are some quotes about that:

• "Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession." Berkman: What is Anarchism?, p. 217
• "Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty. And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery? But then why do we oppose them? The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others..." Malatesta: The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113
• Possessions: "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives.", whereas property is that "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." Walter: About Anarchism, p. 40

In short: Social anarchists, INCLUDING communists supports occupancy and use possessions, and Social anarchists, INCLUDING communists do NOT support forcing collectivism or communism on others, and have no problems with individuals organising themselves anyway they wish as long as they don't oppress others. Funkybeat 02:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear from the above quotes that they would allow private ownership of man-made means of production. "The watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people..."? What if someone wants to own a watch factory. Are they going to stop it? Individualists anarchists support private ownership of everything produced or acquired out of labor --machines, buildings, factories, money, etc. RJII 02:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's clear that they would, as long as they are not used to oppress anyone. Or, in Malatesta's words: "property that allows its owners to live from the work of others..." is what is opposed. Of course, if you choose to create your own means of production and use them on your own, nobody would bother you. It's just that anarcho-communists don't expect too many people to choose this avenue. Funkybeat 03:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, that's what I would expect from a true anarchist-communist. An anarchist would have to allow everyone to engage in any system they wish, including systems where consensual profit occurs. Individualist anarchist Clarence Swartz says in What is Mutualism: "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." RJII 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Since Swartz is not a communist anarchist or a syndicalist, I'll take Kropotkin's, Berkmann's and Malatesta's word over his. Funkybeat 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On anarchist property

Since this is getting too confusing, let's open up a topic for property too, like I did for the imagined "forcing of communism." All anarchists (from individualists to communists) believe in occupancy and use rights for property, including the ownership of their own labour. Proudhon (and most other anarchists) use the term "possession" for occupancy and use instead of property, some others (like Tucker) use the term "property", but qualify it. All of them opposed usury, which includes wages for profit, which means that the only type of "wage" is the full product of a person's labour.

The only major difference is how the products of one's labour are exchanged, whether on a market, or freely given away at no charge within a commune.

The artificial distinction between "anarchists who support private property" and those who don't is fake and incorrect. Here are some quotes about this:

• "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; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." Spooner gives his vision of a world without wages in his letter to Cleveland
• "It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual occupancy and use." Tucker: Instead of a Book, p. 61
• "Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." Proudhon on the difference between possession and property in What is Property? p395-6

It is clear that Proudhon and his individualist followers argued for occupancy and use to define property, which can also be called possessions. It is also clear that they opposed usury such as interest, rent, profit, as well as the right of ownership of unused resources. So while means of production could be privately owned, they could not be used to exploit others. Now let's look at social anarchists:

• "when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work." Kropotkin
• "Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty. And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery? But then why do we oppose them? The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order." Malatesta: The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113

In other words, occupancy and use are perfectly fine, and nobody will bother you if you don't oppress others (usury). This is exactly the same as with individualists. So this huge made up rift on property doesn't exist.

The article needs to be changed to something like this: "All anarchists reject capitalist property, based on the doctrine of use and abuse, and replace it with the concept of possessions based on occupancy and use. All anarchists reject capitalism and usury. A movement called anarcho-capitalism appeared at the end of the 20th century, which tries to reconcile anarchism with capitalism, but most anarchists do not accept them as anarchists. Here is the page on anarcho-capitalism..." Funkybeat 03:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For individualist anarchists, the "occupancy and use" only applies to land, etc. That doesn't apply to the produce of labor. One still owns his produce whether he's using it or not --he can accumulate a load of capital and stick it under the mattress if he wishes. Several years later, if he wishes, he can take it to a mutual bank and loan it out. And, since there would be no restrictions on banking, competition would be so prevalent that interest rates would be at, or near, zero. By the way, Murray Rothbard, anarcho-capitalist, says something similar on occupancy and use of land: "If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be" And, like the classical individualsts, anarcho-capitalists choose individual ownership of the produce of labor. Anarcho-communists do not. And again, the subjective value theory of anarcho-capitalists is the sole reason there is any difference from classical individualism. There is no requirement that you have to hold on to the labor theory of value to be an anarchist. RJII 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The individualists simply thought that a market where possessions are sold at production value is the best way to achieve socialism. Other anarchists had different models. The only different thing between communists anarchists, or syndicalists, and individualists is how to spread the products of labour around. A communist would freely share his products with others. But he wouldn't force a person to give him his products if he doesn't want to share -- after all, anarchism is against coercion, that's what capitalism is about. Once again, anarchism is a socialist theory and all of its proponents have been anti-capitalists. The point of anarchism is to achieve freedom through the absence of economic coercion which is the origin of oppression in today's society. That's what anarchism is about. Anarcho-capitalism is like "beef veganism", where you combine the theory of veganism with a tasty beef burger. Funkybeat 19:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply because anarchists in the past have adhered to the labor theory of value doesn't mean you have to do so to be an anarchist. Just because anarchists of the past have opposed state capitalism doesnt mean that an anarchist today can't support stateless capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is real ..the theory exists. Philosophy of capitalism has been altered to a stateless form, and it is now one of thee various schools of anarchist thought. There is no turning back. The individualist anarchists didn't want to accept communist anarchism as "true anarchism" either. Tucker called it "psuedo-anarchism." Same thing is happening with anarcho-capitalism. RJII 19:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists are traditionally socialists, which is the opposite of capitalist. The rift is far greater than STV/LTV. Capitalism is about individual control of resources and forcing the less fortunate into wage labour. As I said, you can mention "anarcho"-capitalism and link to it, but don't vandalise the non-capitalist pages with your POV stuff. LOL at "three various schools". Funkybeat 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So what happened to mediation?

This is turning into yet another talk page. We know already that this doesn't work. So we're still at a stalemate and a revert war, and the main page is still hopelessly biased. Funkybeat 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, apparently one of the parties doesn't want to continue... Andre (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to continue. And I'll get other anarchists too if necessary. Funkybeat 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, socialist anarchists have this strange habit of making obviously false claims and then scurrying off when someone corrects them on the talk page. I'm not saying this as a diss; it's something based on repeated observations. If you're going to stick around, Funkybeat, more power to you. MrVoluntarist 02:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I should probably confirm here that I have abandoned this mediation. Arguing history or trying to interpret what well-known anarchists thought seems to me to be moving on the wrong track, in the same way I think creating a feminism article based around what Susan B. Anthony or Simone de Beauvoir thought would be a poor decision. Adding to that time restraints, a pessimistic attitude towards the future of the article in general, and what I perceive as self-excusing but abusive trolling (see comment above), I think I'm done here. In response to the above I feel I should also clarify that not all anti-capitalist anarchists consider themselves socialists, and some in fact are hostile to both frameworks. I'm certainly happy with Funkybeat as a replacement advocate. Sarge Baldy 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll advocate for the anti-capitalist position along with Funkybeat. Chris Acheson 08:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't be about pro or anti capitalism. You already have the wrong attitude. RJII 15:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems a perfectly appropriate way to differentiate between the two sides of this debate. One side claims that anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, by definition. The other side claims that they are not. Chris Acheson 16:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Some think that anarchism and anarcho-communism are mutually exclusive. Benjamin Tucker called anarcho-communism "pseudo-anarchism." I don't think the argument is important. Everybody thinks their anarchism is the "true anarchism." If you want an NPOV article, then all schools of thought that purport to be anarchism must be included. And, our POV (we editors) of what is or isn't real anarchism should be excluded. RJII 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

These people are in the small minority. Tucker considered Kropotkin a non-anarchist. But ALL anarchists, from Tucker, Proudhon, Spooner, to Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. were anti-capitalist, they were ALL socialists and they were all against rule, whether by state or anybody else. To come 200 years later and claim that you can inject capitalism into an utterly anti-capitalist theory, and claim that this is NPOV is like going into the article on Democracy and adding Democratic People's Republic of North Korea as an equally valid type of democracy and then showing how it is developed from Rousseau. Funkybeat 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spooner was a funny sort of "socialist" given that he was prone to founding for-profit businesses, such as his American Letter Mail Company. Socialism is not in any way compatible with "no rule", since it takes a heavy degree of coercive oppression to force people into the socialists' collectivist schemes. Capitalism is about freedom of enterprise. *Dan T.* 01:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

And this is exactly why virtually all anarchists throughout history have identified themselves as socialists. Except Lyndsay Spooner, who believed in destroying capitalism slowly. Tucker had a savings account, and Proudhon paid taxes. This is because they believed that the state and capitalism had to be defeated from inside and that you couldn't form anarchy and start being an anarchist straight away. Funkybeat 20:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Classical individualist anarchists define capitalism as government-backed privilege for capital. If you define capitalism as individualist anarchists define it, then anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism. RJII 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists, just like all other anarchists, object to usury, which is what capitalism is based on (making capital "work" for you). so to say that individualist anarchists don't oppose capitalism is incorrect. Capitalism without usury is impossible. Funkybeat 20:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The classic individualist anarchists DO oppose capitalism, by both their definition and the modern common definition (which is contrary to the way individualist anarchists defined it). Anarcho-capitalists oppose capitalism by the individualist anarchists' definition. The is just a semantical point. Classical individualist indeed oppose capitalism as it is defined today --because it includes "profit" (usury). But again, there is no requirement that you have to oppose profit to be an anarchist, especially if it occurs between consenting individuals. The only thing that stops the classic individualists from expressing no opposition to profit is the labor theory of value. And, you don't have to adhere to the labor theory of value to be an anarchists --there is no such requirement. RJII 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Separate Movements, Bad Faith

This is from the talk page, in response to RJII. I believe it's relevant to the current mediation:

I'm not Max rspct. I'm a concerned reader. The current state of this article is, quite frankly, crap. It was decent when all treatment of "anarcho"-capitalism was confined to one section of the article. That's all it is warranted, really. If readers want to know more about the subject, there's an entire article about it. I hear that it's quite good, too--it was featured on Wikipedia's main page not too long ago.

Currently, this article treats anarcho-capitalism as a factional view of the philosophy of anarchism, which it is not. It is a factional view of classical liberalism. Anarchism is based on opposition to hierarchy/rulership/power-inequality (the literal, etymological definition of "anarchy"). Classical liberalism is based on minimization of government. The fact that your particular faction sometimes self-identifies as "anarchist" confuses the issue. They are not part of the movement that is typically and traditionally refered to as "the anarchist movement", so disambiguation is necessary.

I noticed the sorry state of this article more than a week ago, and I've been aware of your participation for quite a while. At first I thought you were just persistent, well-meaning, and misinformed. It wasn't until today (well, the 22nd) that I noticed the link to "luciferia"[29] in the "opposing views" section, which (according to the edit history[30]) you added. I'm beginning to strongly suspect bad faith on your part. Honestly, what possible purpose could the inclusion of that link serve, other than to damage the credibility of those who disagree with you and to push your own political agenda?

The version of the article that I've been reverting to, while probably not the best in the entire edit history, is a good deal better than the current version. If you'd prefer not to participate in a revert war, I'm entirely willing to compromise on this issue. A disambiguation page would suffice. I'd even agree to have a section of the anarchism article dedicated to explaining the ambiguity surrounding the use of the words "anarchism" and "anarchist" as they pertain to anarcho-capitalism. Just let me know.

Chris Acheson 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And here's my response to the above diatribe, copied from the anarchism talk page:

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't do much editing in this article in regard to anarcho-capitalism. Most of my edits have been in regard to classic individualist anarchism. As far as putting up the Luciferia site, I felt it was necessary to put up evidence that some think individualist anarchism is not real anarchism. That site says explicitly "Individualist anarchism is not anarchism." If you have a better one, feel free to put it up. It seems almost everyone recognizes individualist anarchism as anarchism. I don't have any agenda other than presenting each kind of anarchism accurately. I've also contributed to other sections, such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, black anarchism, and national anarchism. RJII 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris Acheson editing in bad faith

And here is evidence that Chris Acheson is engaging in blanking. He's deletion entire sections, and huge sections of text on other sections, such as individualist anarchism: [31] Now, that's bad faith. RJII 14:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  The above poster has been abusing wikipedia users from this debate through email etc.--24.229.144.4 23:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Me? I hope you're not talking about me. I haven't emailed anyone. RJII 00:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)