Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vision Thing (talk | contribs) at 12:56, 26 June 2006 (→Anarcho-capitalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philosophy Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Another Suggestion

Thanks for making those changes, Sarge. Now, one more concern: the phrasing "the 20th century saw the formulation of the contentious anarcho-capitalism."

The adjective "contentious" seems to modify "anarcho-capitalism" rather than whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism. This would likely imply to new readers that there is something internal to anarcho-capitalism causing dispute. What we really mean, of course, is that there is a dispute about whether anarcho-capitalism qualifies as anarchism - quite a different thing. One could properly talk about, e.g. contentious propaganda of the deed, since prop of the deed involves violence and contention, but not anarcho-capitalism, if you catch my drift. Would you clarify what contentious is modifying by changing it to something like: the 20th century saw a contentious/disputed/controversial (take your pick) formulation of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism?

Further tweaking it: the word "capitalism" itself is, as you know, defined differently by different people, and has changed considerably over time. So why not specify what is different about this formulation? In particular, inserting the word "pro-market" (or "modern pro-market" to distinguish it from older Individualist Anarchist pro-market notions) explains even better. Thus we now have, the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.

IMO the last one is best, most precise, etc. But at a minimum the adjective "contentious" should be moved, as in the first suggestion.

Also, anarcho-capitalism should be a link, since it is the first occurance. Finally, what's with the double reference to Encarta in the same sentence? The "and to this day" seems gratuitous, and can be omitted. Thus we have:

Anarchism traditionally and popularly is described as anti-capitalist, though the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.

BillyBong 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree the wording is poor. I don't know about "the rise" (since it suggests it's older), and "modern pro-market" is confusing. How about "although the 1970s saw the formulation of a contentious free market philosophy called anarcho-capitalism"? Though there might be a better word than philosophy. Sarge Baldy 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, revision: "though the 1970s saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism." Sarge Baldy 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. BillyBong 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's not like we're actively sitting here trying to figure out how to marginalize your POV. I'm very open (maybe too open) to compromise and cooperate and find fair solutions. But this really just isn't the best article to jump into and rewrite whole sections unilaterally. That's really the main thing that bothers people. Sarge Baldy 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, you've been very accomodating, and you're not my personal secretary, so there's no need for you to make the following edits. Most are relatively minor, and can wait until protection is lifted. Meanwhile, discussion is invited.

• Somewhere along the line, the translation of archon was changed from "ruler" to "chief." "Ruler" is a more precise translation - the one given here in Misplaced Pages.
• Origins and predecessors can be trimed. In the second sentence, "Following classical socialist theory" is gratuitous; the claim following is not part of classical socialist theory (esp for statist socialists), and can easily (and usually is) supported without reference to socialism. The first sentence about Kropotin's book is relevant, but it shouldn't be the lead sentence since, without previous explanation, it doesn't seem to relate to the section title. Also, "tribal societies" should be changed to "hunter-gatherer societies" to make it clear we are not speaking of e.g. modern Cherokees in Oklahoma that live consumerist American lifestyles, run casinos, and get govt aid for being indians. I would stike the egalitarian claim since many feminists would reject most such societies as paternalistic; besides, the relative equality of resources implies a degree of egalitarianism anyway. I suggest modifying the first paragraph to:

Anarchists argue that the State is not a natural phenomenon, and that hunter-gatherer societies lacked division of labour, accumulated wealth, decreed law, and had relatively equal access to resources. In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Peter Kropotkin argued that mutual aid was a natural feature of animal and human relations.

• In the second paragraph of the same section, replace "earlier" (than what?) with "pre-modern" or "ancient."
• The Proudhon section is very redundant, e.g. it says he opposes capitalism six times, and that doesn't include his direct quotes, or descriptions of mutualism which clearly show incompatability with capitalism. It smacks of an editorial agenda, or overreaction, or defensiveness. Since "capitalism" is such a connotative and disputed term, I'd hack out most references to the "C" word and let Proudhon's explanations of possession and mutualism speak for themselves.
• In the Other issues section, the Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism, and Anti-Oppression subsection, the second half of the paragraph should be deleted, starting with "Anti-Racist Action is not an anarchist group..." (Neither is Zapatista, strictly speaking, and anarcha-feminism is already covered.) Cut, trim, snip.
• The whole Cultural Phenomena section can go. If someone is really attached to it, they can make it a separate article, with a See Also link in this one.
• Probably that book they use in college philosophy courses, "In Defense of Anarchism," should be included in the book section. It's really pretty good, and academically respectable.

BillyBong 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

UK encart article does not say what is claimed

It does not say anarchism was "traditionally anti-capitalist". It should be changed so that the article claims the source says it was originally associated with socialism and communism. Also, why does the article say "contentious anarcho-capitalism". Like anarchism isn't contentious. (Sorry if that's misspelled.) MrVoluntarist 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you know, anarcho-capitalism is a little too radical for most anarchists. Anything too far out of the supposed "mainstream" makes them uncomfortable. RJII 04:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what's so radical about it. It's just a consistent form of libertarian capitalism. Radicalism means wanting major changes. Anarcho-capitalism hardly wants to change anything. It thinks things are pretty good. Hell, most anarcho-capitalists think they can get where they want to go through voting. Sarge Baldy 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

wha? Anarcho-capitalists ... hardly want to change ... anything? Anarcho-capitalists ... favor ... voting? Um, was that post supposed to be satire, or...? MrVoluntarist 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not mainstream anarchism supposedly. RJII 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The short 1 page US Encarta (ref 2) says the anarchism is "basically anticapitalist." The three page UK encarta (ref 1) says about individualist anarchism: "Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism." Neither refers to ancap as contentious. So the sentence in the intro should be changed from:

It has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist, though the latter 20th century saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.

to

The latter 20th century saw a free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism, though it is traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist.

- Faithless

Exactly! Thank you. Of course, the US Encarta source has its own problems, but we can discuss that once we agree your phrasing is better. MrVoluntarist 17:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'it' in your phrasing is ambiguous (obviously it refers to 'anarchism', but grammatically it looks like it refers to 'anti-capitalism'). Maybe:

Although the later 20th century saw the development of a free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism, anarchism is traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist.

VoluntarySlave 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Why don't you go ahead and make that change. It seems fair and neutral - as opposed to AaronS's POV deletion of the citatation he doesn't like. - Faithless ne BillyBong ne anon ne ... (I was right the first time; It doesn't make sense to register.)

Thanks. That was quick. But we've lost the free market and anarcho-capitalism links. Could you put those back in? - Faithless

Anarchism, Possession and Property

We could consolidate much of the stuff into one section. As it is we get incomplete descriptions of Proudhon's views on the subject, and then later Tucker's views, and then later Kropotkin's views, etc. Bringing these together would help readers see the recurring themes in each system. Also, the text doesn't explain possession very well. Finally, the 'Theory of Property' from what excepts I have available, seems closer to Georgism than to propertarianism in the usual sense. Jacob Haller 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right - possession is not explained very well at all. In the Proudhon section, the explanation given is confusing and contradictory. (But Proudhon may have liked that!). As BillyBong suggested above, the whole Proudhon section needs to be revamped. Maybe there needs to be a sidebar explaining the similarities and differences between private property and possession as mutualists use the terms. Or simply include a short explanation in the Proudhon section. E.g. Proudhon used the term "possession" to refer to a variant of private property in which ownership required continuous possession and/or use. In his early writings, he used "property" to mean ownership failing to satisfy the continued use provision. - Faithless

We ought to avoid using one word (property) in two very different senses. Like 'wage labor' 'private property' can cause confusion. I'm not sure how to set up tables here, but perhaps one listing different viewpoints (Proudhon's, Tucker's, and various modern groupings), their standards for legit ownership, their terminology for legit ownership (possession or property for Proudhon, possession for most modern anarchists) and their terminology for illegitimate ownership (property for Proudhon and for most modern anarchists). Another approach would focus on the basic rationales for these systems; to preserve economic autonomy ('property is freedom') including equal access, to reflect a right of individuals to the products of their labor, to reflect a right of individuals to the requirements of life, etc. Jacob Haller 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

JacobHaller wrote: "We ought to avoid using one word (property) in two very different senses."

I agree. One easy way around it is to use the standard Misplaced Pages meaning of property, and use the French propriété for Proudhon's non-standard meaning. Thus, modifying the suggestion above we get:

Proudhon used the term "possession" to refer to property in which ownership required continuous possession and/or use, and "propriété" to mean property failing to satisfy the continued use provision.

What do you think? - Faithless

I guess I'm more interested in the ways people use the words right now. Thanks. Jacob Haller 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

??? You can't have it both ways. Right now, people use the word property in two very different senses. If you want to avoid that ambiguity, then we need to have a convention for our article. SteveRwanda 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Very, very good point. There is significant ambiguity in word usage, due to how terms have changed over time and people have adopted new terminology. Not just property and possession, but capitalism, liberalism, even anarchism. I don't know any easy fix for an article that has to use so many terms like that. MrVoluntarist 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff, but to my mind we already go into too much depth on it in an article that is overlong. I would actually trim all but the barest references to theories of property out of this page, and suggest people who are interested in the subject work on it in other pages. The details of Proudhon's theory in the Proudhon page, more general and comparative stuff in pages on theories of property in general, or perhaps on a new page about anarchist theories of property. Or maybe the anarchist economics page.Bengalski 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my thought. This article is a bit heavy on these issues, and too heavy in general. Which isn't to say it isn't an important discussion to get into, but it might be necessary to spill things onto a new page instead. Sarge Baldy 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. What if we, when at all possible, use some specifying adjective with the ambiguous terms. For example, instead of simply "property" when we are using it in the mutualist/socialist illegitimate type of ownership sense, we use the term "allodial property." Instead of "capitalism" in its not legitimate according to socialism sense, we use the term "statist capitalism." Instead of capitalism in its legitimate according to anarcho-capitalism sense, we use the term "stateless capitalism." Then we go through the article and specify wherever such terms stand alone. This would not increase article length except for the few specifying adjectives, so Bengalski's and SargeBaldy's concerns are hopefully addressed.SteveRwanda 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It's cleaner, easier to read, and gets us from semantics to the point. Sarge Baldy 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

At least until mercantilists start calling tariffs an integral part of "stateless capitalism", their chosen name for their system ;-) Seriously, this suggestion would be a tremendous improvement. MrVoluntarist 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on this. As far as I understand it 'allodial property' is a very specific legal term, and I'm far from convinced that Proudhon or any other anarchist writer on property was much concerned with this narrow legal concept. I don't see where introducing 'statist/stateless capitalism' would help the article. Where specifically do you want to introduce these changes?Bengalski 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to specify "capitalism":

The first self-labelled anarchist, 2nd P:

"opposed capitalism" to "opposed statist capitalism"

3rd P: "capitalism" to "statist capitalism"

same for every occurrance of "capitalism" except in the quote

Anarchism and feminism

2nd P: "capitalism" to "statist capitalism"

Anarcho-capitalism

1st P: "interest or capitalism" to "interest or stateless capitalism"

2nd P: "capitalism" to "stateless capitalism" in two places

Other issues

2nd P and last P: "capitalism" to "statist capitalism"

SteveRwanda 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On Proudhon I'd propose this: give a bare statement using his own terms in the first para, cut out all other discussion of the theory, and refer the interested reader elsewhere. Eg something like this:

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is commonly regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label he adopted in his groundbreaking work What is Property?, published in 1840. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory. Proudhon developed the theory of spontaneous order in society, where organization emerges without a central coordinator imposing its own idea of order against the wills of individuals acting in their own interests; his famous quote on the matter is, "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order."

In What is Property? Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work he opposed the institution of "property" (propriété), as he understood the term, but supported an alternative form of ownership he called "possession". Proudhon's theory of property is highly complex, and its interpretation the subject of much debate. (See XXX for more detail.)Bengalski 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine but it it should be noted that later he dropped the idea of "possession" and supported "private property" as protection against the state. RJII 23:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By my partial reading, he uses use/possession as the basic theory with original production as a second test for produced goods and geoism as a second test for land. He changes his terminology, using property in the sense of possession, but not his position. Jacob Haller 04:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he changed his position. As the source in the article says, he eventually "came to consider that liberty could be guaranteed only if property ownership was not subject to any limitation save that of size" He even allowed land to be inherited. The source says he "reverses his earlier preferences for 'possession' rather than 'property' as a form of ownership, arguing instead that the individual must be absolutely sovereign over his own land." (Edwards, Stewart. Introduction to Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1969, p. 33) RJII 05:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Allowed"? I thought he was very passionately in favor of the right of inheritance. MrVoluntarist 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. RJII 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Simple Justice, I said in my first Memoir, requires that equal division of land shall not operate only at the outset. If there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to generation. This applies to all extractive industries. ... If the landowners derive an income for themselves, this is an abuse." - Proudhon, Theory of Property pp. 18-19. Jacob Haller 13:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that one (shorter, clearer) subsection can replace the (long, scattered) references in the individual subsections. Even if not (1) the critique of (presently-existing) property represent one of the starting points for anarchist theory (2) and often one of the distinguishing features between anarchist theories. I now agree with the two-word suggestion, i.e. possession, (possession) property, (geoist) property, (Lockean) property, (feudal) property, (non-possession) property, etc. This could work even without moving everything. Jacob Haller 04:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the suggestions made in this section. Mainly somewhat shortening Proudhon and modifying "capitalism" where appropriate. WickedWanda 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Were the changes to the Proudhon section necessary, appropriate, or discussed above? Anyway, check 'General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century' pp. 260-261 (or Edwards and Fraser p. 73). Proudhon distinguishes between (feudal) property and possession/(possessive) property, even if he first called the latter 'possession' and later called it 'property.' Jacob Haller 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed in this section. But you are definitely right that possession needs to be in there, so I put it back in. WickedWanda 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Encarta?

Can one encyclopedia use another one as a source? --cesarb 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course it can. We have quite a lot of articles that were based directly off other encyclopedia articles. Admittedly it's a bit incestual in a way, but encyclopedias are generally a bit more neutral than most other publications that could be dug up. Sarge Baldy 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

These are articles that were copied from older encyclopedias, not that use them as a source. --cesarb 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Though I guess the questions I would ask is whether the source is reliable or neutral. I would generally consider an encyclopedia an adequate secondary source, if not the best one. Though it might be a question worth addressing at WP:RS. Sarge Baldy 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IWW and 3rd International

AFAIK the IWW rejected involvedment in the 3rd International and was never 'pro-Comintern.' The pro-Comintern members left to form the CP while the neitral and anti-Comintern members stayed with the IWW. Can anyone cite sources for the assertion in the article? Jacob Haller 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Property

There have been recent attempts to delete the anarcho-capitalist position on property. This does not seem reasonable, since property is a major consideration for anarchists. Should we delete Proudhon's or Bakunin's theories of property, too, to be consistent? That said, I think

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time).

should be rephrased to

Most anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can originate only from being the product of labor, and may only be legitimately transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time).

I'm going to fiddle with this wording just a teensy bit. --Christofurio 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

SteveRwanda 10:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's crucial. We have explanations of the communist anarchist position on property, as well as for the labor-value individualists. The property philosophy of anarcho-capitalism is essential. And, it only takes one sentence to explain. (By the way, I think your version is an improvement.) RJII 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone get over it, Anarchism exsists. Just because you don't want it to doesn't mean its going away.

Agorism

Any objection to putting Agorism on the template? What about a subsection in the article? WickedWanda 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I object. It's a wingnut fringe of a wingnut fringe, neither of which have much to do with anarchism. --Tothebarricades 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As if anarchism itself is not a "wingnut fringe." RJII 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's important enough in itself, but I suspect it can serve to bring out important features in related traditions. For one thing, agorism splits the possession-to-property left-right axis from the workers' revolution-to-capitalist hegemony left-right axis, with the Elmer Smiths of the world on the right of the former and the left of the latter. Jacob Haller 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. In Misplaced Pages's Le Guinian terminology, agorism is the middle "soft propertarian" ground between anti-propertarian socialists and hard propertarian capitalists. It is tolerant to both community property and private property. WickedWanda 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no to inclusion in the template; in historical terms, it's just not significant the way, say, anarcho-syndicalism &c are. I'd be open to inclusion as a small paragraph in "Other branches and offshoots" - since that includes such notable non-movements as Saul Newman's post-Anarchism. Or alternatively, as a short subsection under anarcho-capitalism (not to equate the two, but the one emerged from the other). Not as its own section though. Bacchiad 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection template

I don't see it in the article, but I see it in the source. WTF? Perhaps it needs to be "sprotected" rather than "semiprotected". WickedWanda 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, apparently the banner has been replaced with that lock icon in the top right. Which I guess is less intrusive. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there it is! WickedWanda 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AC removed

Why was Anarcho-capitalism removed from this article? AC deserves just as much time in the article as i.e. anarchist communism. I don't know how to revert pages, so could someone please fix this? I understand that many self-proclaimed anarchists feel that AC is not really anarchism, but wikipedia is not the place to voice your philosophies, it is the place to present the facts behind a subject from a Neutral Point of View and there is a strong enough of an anarcho-capitalist presence which claims to be anarchistic and this deserves to be mentioned.

I fixed it. Twice. Apparently (look at Talk History) Max is a known edit warrior. I can only undo one more time today, so someone else may have to take over. WickedWanda 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

YOU are not a wikipedian Hogeye go away, stop vandalizing the article with original reseach and POV You swear, personal attack, and get frequently banned as well as using sockpuppets ad infinitum. -- maxrspct leave a message 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3"  : (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840 ) -- maxrspct leave a message 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that A/C is not a proper form of anarchism, please explain your position under the A/C section of the page, but do not delete it. Your single source (which has questionable reliability as the author does not even have a page on wikipedia nor is the book in question readily available) does not call for blatant omission of information relevant to the subject of the article. Two-Bit Sprite 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You ca't self-ref wikipedia Twobit.. I have it right here.. but that quote is the pertinent one. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone hadn't noticed, there are sources attached from scholars saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. If anyone needs more source let me know. I have plenty more. It's not original research so there's not justification to delete it. RJII 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Independant non-fringe sources? I doubt it. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just look for yourself? They're right there in the footnotes. They're certainly not what one would call "fringe sources" RJII 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm starting an Anarcho-capitalism article in Wikiquote and will begin listing sources. That will help prevent people from trying to censor anarcho-capitalism out of this article in the future. Here it is so far: RJII 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha haaa.. Typical .. - none are non-fringe. U have admitted yerself that Peter Marshall's book as inaccurate.. so....... -- maxrspct leave a message 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The last laugh is mine. You'll NEVER be able to censor anarcho-capitalism from this article. When I'm going in about a week you'll still be here waging your futile war. Have fun. I hope they pay you well. You wouldn't be sensless enough to do this stuff for free would you? RJII 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all about living life RJ, whoever you are. Getting paid? Yeah it's like Orwell's 1984 > speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write - maxrspct leave a message 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it curious why you care. Anarcho-capitalism is obviously very different from all the other branches of anarchism, so why do you wish so much for it to be associated with them? -- infinity0 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a form anarchism. Each form of anarchism is very different from other forms, in my opinion, as well. I would replace anarcho-communism just the same if someone tried to delete it. RJII 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural phenomena

It's been suggest by a couple of people that this section be removed. Any objections?WickedWanda 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are the people? A bunch of sockpuppents of Hogeye? The Ungovernable Force 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. I hadn't heard anyone else say anything about wanting to get rid of it. Sarge Baldy 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"big edit" by Bacchiad

I have to say, I kind of liked what Bacchiad did to the page (prior to its reversion), it at least started to restore some consistancy in structure, however I think some improbements could be made to it, for example I feel that anarcho-capitalism is downplayed in as a subheading under "Issues" and I feel that the tension between social anarchists and capitalistic anarchists (and even between say mutualists, agorists and syndicalists) that it should have its own heading, maybe...? Two-Bit Sprite 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it as well, and think it lays things out better (with a movement section, followed by one for individualism, and then one for issues). It's less cluttered. And I don't feel it downplays anarcho-capitalism, as if there's any word to describe a/c's place within anarchism, it's "disputed". Putting it against anarchism's long opposition to capitalism doesn't seem unfair to me, it seems to put things more into perspective. It's also a lot slimmer, which would be a nice change. Sarge Baldy 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you have not given a sufficient reason for the reversion. Bacciad has obviously spent a long time making that edit; don't just blindly revert it without even giving a reason - that's rude. From the first glance, whatever its faults, I think it is better than the long version, and it is more easy to make changes to Bacciad's version than the long version. -- infinity0 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII, your reversion is illogical. Why don't you re-insert the ancap section instead of reverting? -- infinity0 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

May I also point you to WP:NPOV where minority/insignificant viewpoints are not necessary. Anarcho-feminism, religious anarchism, etc, were all deleted too. The edit is not an anti-capitalist edit, so please don't think that. It's an attempt to improve the article. -- infinity0 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the version now, I see that all the previous sections are still there. Instead of carving anarchism up into distinct schools, it goes over the issues within anarchism. I think this is a much better format since it avoids being black and white. Your ancap information is still in the article, so don't worry. -- infinity0 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the issue-based style as well. I think it works better to look at "capitalism" and say what different anarchists have had to say about it rather than looking at each different group of anarchists and saying what they had to say about each specific issue. There's too much overlap to look at individual traditions. There's movements and history, and then there's specific issues. And that's all we should be concerned with. Sarge Baldy 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've had this way of organizing the article before, with main sections: Precursors, Socialist/Workers/Communist and Individualist/Liberal. I like it too, now that the intro includes both the anti-state definition and the trad anti-state plus anti-capitalist definition. Looking good for the moment. WickedWanda 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, anarcho-capitalism does not belong in the intro. The overwhelming current of anarchist thought and practice has been fundamentally anti-capitalist. Ancap deserves no more mention in the introduction than other small, late-anarchist groupings, like Green Syndicalism or Anarcho-Primitivism. Bacchiad 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think it should have its own section. It should be listed along with the issue of capitalism, so that people can better understand its disputed place. Sarge Baldy 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. In a way it's better that way, since the anti-capitalist disclaimers are preceeding (rather than mixed in with) the ancap paragraphs. WickedWanda 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism vs. capitalism... common ground?

Is the capitalism supported by Anarcho-capitalists the same capitalism that non-a-c anarchists oppose? Don't members of both groups oppose state supported capitalism, which is modern day capitalism? I mean, in a truly anarchist free market, would we have the giant multi-national powerful capitalist corporations that we have today? Or are they creations supported and subsidized by the government infrastructure equally opposed by all types of anarchists? In other words, are anacaps and "traditional" anarchists really different in their beliefs? When anarchists say they oppose capitalism, what exactly do they oppose? What kind of capitalism do the anacaps support? Could there be more common ground here than many realize? --Serge 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Anarchists oppose capitalism, regardless of whether it's tied to the state, because it's seen as inherently exploitative and hierarchical. But then, anarchists not only have a problem with the capitalism of a/c, but also that it supports the existence of many other authoritarian institutions anarchism has long fought against, such as police forces, military, organized religion, bureaucracies, and just about anything else. In fact, all anarcho-capitalists really are interested in is the privatization of the state, not its elimination. Which is pretty far out from any "traditional" anarchist perspective. So no, there really isn't any common ground. Sad as it is to say, trying to reconcile traditional anarchism with anarcho-capitalism is about as easy as trying to reconcile it with the state. (And that's speaking as someone who was a longtime libertarian capitalist and anarcho-capitalist.) Sarge Baldy 06:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But how does one prevent capitalism from occuring naturally without resorting to a state to control it? Capitalism, ultimately, is simply the free trade of goods and labor, is it not? If a baker wants to hire help, what's to prevent him from doing so in a hypothetical traditional anarchist society? What if he's successful, and opens multiple bakeries, hiring more and more people? At some point (if not when he buys his first pound of flour or sells his first loaf of bread), he is a capitalist. How do "traditional anarchists" prevent such capitalism from flourishing if not with the power of the state? And if they do prevent natural capitalism from flourishing with the power of the state, how are they anarchists?

Also, is privatization of the state not its elimination? I mean, how is a privatized state a state? That is, if individuals are paying for various "traditional state" services (water, streets, police, fire, etc.) directly (or collectively through contracts entered voluntarily, such as part of a home owner's association), where is "the state"? Is it not eliminated when it is so privatized? In the Soviet Union, milk production and distribution was a state service. In capitalist societies this function is privatized. Does not the privatization of this service eliminate the state, at least with respect to that service? Wouldn't that be true for any state function that is privatized in an a-c society? If all state functions were privatized, would that not eliminate the state? If not, how would it be manifisted? --Serge 07:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you assume too much that capitalism arises up naturally if there is no authoritarian force there to "squelch" it. On the contrary, depending on how you organize society, capitalism and competition might be completely nonsensical. That's the whole point. It's not about simply throwing out the state, and making a few tinkers, it's about radically reorganizing society in such a way that it is no longer compatible with a capitalist economic structure. That means eliminating currency, eliminating surplus, eliminating anything that poses a threat to egalitarian relations. Designing a society in which capitalism makes no sense. It's not hard to dig around and find societies that are organized this way. For example, the Piaroa and the Paliyans both see competition as leading to the breakdown of the order and individuality they value.

The thing with anarcho-capitalism is, they want all the functions of government, they even want laws, they want police, they want formalized education, they want a military. They want everything the state has to offer, except maybe taxes or the draft. That works as a consistent version of social contract theory or classic liberalism but hardly fits well into the anarchist tradition, which has criticized the control of individuals in all institutions. Anarchists weren't simply opposed to the state as a formal legal entity, but also to each and every one of its functions. Anarcho-capitalists by contrast believe very deeply in what the state has to offer, but just don't like the idea of the state as a monopoly, and think corporations can do a better job competing over each of the functions.

Anarcho-capitalists believe in private police forces who legally enforce capitalism, which just shows how unstable it is on its own. Other anarchists don't believe in "enforcing" an anti-capitalist economic system, because they see that as non-anarchist. But if they did, if they had police forces that controlled capitalism, beating people with a stick for trying to sell things, that would be the mirror of anarcho-capitalism – in which you beat people for taking "private property" – and essentially just as anarchist, or just as non-anarchist, as the case might be. On the contrast, anarchists believe in a system that works without having to restort back to authoritarian social controls. Sarge Baldy 08:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that relatively small human societies can survive and even thrive to a certain extent without the money and liberty that enables the efficient division of labor required to sustain modern populations. But do you envision hundreds of millions cooperating and thriving without the free trade of goods of services that is the hallmark of capitalism? What would motivate individuals to act in the highly productive, efficient and creative ways required to benefit the anonymous greater good if not to better the lives of themselves and their families the way only capitalism motivates? It is understandable to feel revulsion for the arguably unnatural complexities of modern life, but how else could we have the luxury of the time and technology for two complete strangers to even have this type of discussion? --Serge 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing free trade with capitalism. You can have capitalism without free trade or free trade without capitalism or you could have both or neither. Basicly anarchists view capitalism as other -isms like racism (opression based on race), sexism (opression based on gender), thus capitalism is opression based on financial status. // Liftarn

I am not prepared to concede that I'm confused, but I will admit that I do not see a distinction between capitalism and free trade. That traditional anarchists "see" capitalism as oppressive does not mean it is, nor that it is anything other than free trade. Trade that is truly free among human individuals who differ in drive, personality, values, skills, natural talent, family/personal support, creativity, intelligence, work ethic, etc. will inevitably and necessarily lead to differences in material status between individuals. The greater the population in which free trade is engaged, the greater the largest difference in material status is to be expected. In a village of a few dozen people, that has limited to no trading with others, the differences between the richest and the poorest can be expected to be relatively small. In a free market with over 5 billion participants, the richest will inevitably have substantially more financial status than the poorest. With free trade, this is inevitable. Whether the negotiation advantages and disadvantages enabled by differences in material/financial status constitutes "oppression", or even something we should try to avoid, is a matter of opinion. But even if you wanted to avoid it, I don't see how you could except to inhibit free trade by force. --Serge 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss whether or not ancapism is or is not a "true" form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism does exist and it does claim to be a form of anarchism, and thus anarcho-capitalism as a theory is relevant to the topic of anarchism. Period. Two-Bit Sprite 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think we're discussing whether ancapism is a "true" form of anarchism? --Serge 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy: "The thing with anarcho-capitalism is, they want all the functions of government, they even want laws, they want police, they want formalized education, they want a military."

This seems to conflate services with function of government. Surely even anarcho-socialists don't want to be mugged or killed, and want to exercise their right to possession property (or to take according to their needs, as the case may be.) Ansocs might do this spontaneously, or have a mutual association or co-op to provide this type of security service. I don't see why a firm that provides such a service is a State, but a mutual or co-op that provides it isn't.

Just because something is a service currently provided by the State doesn't mean that it is not valuable to people. Education, for example, is usually provided by the State, but clearly would not cease to be of value in a stateless society.

Sarge Baldy: "If they had police forces that controlled capitalism, beating people with a stick for trying to sell things, that would be the mirror of anarcho-capitalism – in which you beat people for taking private property..."

You seem to be assuming a monopoly here - that these free-market police forces are enforcing a property system on everyone instead of just those who choose their services. Panarchists, anarchists-with-no-adjectives, and ancaps see it as enforcing contracts only in the jurisdiction of those who have voluntarily joined. So yes, if a capitalist goes into an anarcho-communist neighborhood/jurisdiction and hires someone, he may get beaten; if an anti-property communist anarchist goes into an anarcho-capitalist jurisdiction and helps himself to goods, he may get beaten. In either case, the beating may be spontaneous or organized, by individuals or groups. Where's the State?

Sarge Baldy: "I think you assume too much that capitalism arises up naturally if there is no authoritarian force there to "squelch" it. On the contrary, depending on how you organize society, capitalism and competition might be completely nonsensical."

I don't see how you're going to "organize society" to make stateless capitalism nonsensical without using authority. Anarcho-socialists seem to lack any explanation here, and come off as naive and utopian.

My take on the common ground: Both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists are against the State. Both are against statist capitalism. The disagreement is about stateless capitalism, i.e. the voluntary acceptance of private property, free markets, and employment. WickedWanda 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All four terms are ambiguous. For classical anarchists 'capitalism' describes the hierarchies rooted in state power, land monopolies, credit monopolies, and other capital monopolies. Also, some anarchists use 'markets' to describe (voluntary or involuntary) commodity exchange, while others use 'markets' to describe 'the sum of all voluntary human relations.'

The question is whether, absent state power and capital monopolies, people expect market exchanges to take hierarrchical or non-hierarchical forms. Jacob Haller 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User178: "For classical anarchists 'capitalism' describes the hierarchies rooted in state power, land monopolies, credit monopolies, and other capital monopolies."

Right - statist capitalism. Also called "political capitalism" by some (e.g. BlackCrayon.com.)

User178: "Also, some anarchists use 'markets' to describe (voluntary or involuntary) commodity exchange..."

Huh? I've never ever heard this usage. Can you give me a citation of someone using "market" to mean an involuntary commodity exchange?

WickedWanda 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Review link

Where does it say that most anarchists are against institutions of capitalism? -- Vision Thing -- 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right; it says "Those activists who identify with anarchism are usually anti-capitalist; among these, some would also call themselves socialists (presumably of the libertarian variety), some would not." but that's talking specifically about people opposed to neoliberalism. Although I would say I find it literally insane that anyone could think anarcho-capitalists "outnumber" traditional anarchists, especially since anarchism has been growing everywhere in the last decade. It's hard to find a scholarly source saying that most anarchists are against capitalism, because that's the sort of thing people should already know from their intro to political science classes. Very often people write about anarchism without acknowledging the existence of anarcho-capitalism, whether because they believe it's negligible, not anarchism proper, or simply haven't heard of it. It's not hard to find statements from non-anarchists that go "Anarchists believe that human corruption results when differences are enforced through the maintenance of property and authority." (The Anarchist in the Library, Siva Vaidhyanathan) Likewise, the Library of Congress excludes books about anarcho-capitalism from the HX category (which is for "Socialism, communism, anarchism, utopias"). Seeing as the whole field of library science is dedicated to the categorization of information, it seems interesting that they decided anarcho-capitalism doesn't classify as anarchism. But it can stay "many" for now. Sarge Baldy 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A/C cleanup

I've worked a bit on cleaning up the Anarcho-capitalism section, but it still needs some work, namely:

• The sentance "Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman." looks thrown in out of the blue. I agree that Friedman is very important in the A/C tradition, but he needs to be worked into the article instead of stuck into the middle of it, know what I mean?
• The last paragraph seesm to have some misconceptions that I'm not sure how to correct. For example it gives the impression that the NAP is inherantly an aspect of Natural Law. This is incorrect, there are plenty of pragmatist ancapists who perport the NAP as merely a guideline for facilitating the peaceful coopertation of individuals, not as some form of "natural law".
• It also seems to have a strange misconception of the term Utilitarianism. Ancapists who use utilitarian arguments typically state that capitalism is better fit to provide for the needs of the individuals involved in that it generates wealth and hence utility.

Two-Bit Sprite 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained the D. Friedman reference by contrasting his utilitarianism with Rothbard's natural law outlook. I noted the contractarian basis for NAP, and managed to smuggle in a Jan Narveson link. I changed "utilitarian" to "consequentialist" in the last paragraph. WickedWanda 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good thanks! :) I think this section has turned out very nicely, and is just long enough to inform the reader of the essentials and just short enought to be concise. We'll see how long it lasts this time ;) Two-Bit Sprite 18:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism, an institution?

In the introduction there is this sentence:

For many anarchists, this includes not only the state but also the institution of capitalism.

What exactly is the "institution of capitalism"? How can an economic system whose hallmark is free trade be an "institution"? This wording seems biased (Marxist?) and thus in violation of WP:NPOV. --Serge 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you have a misconception about the word "institution". Correct me if I'm wrong (very possible) but I think you are picturing a brick and mortar institution like the post office or something. An institution can merely be a set of conventions and practices, like the "institution of marriage". Two-Bit Sprite 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant to write "institutions" when I typed that sentence - as in banks, wage-structures, corporations, etc. Bacchiad 03:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the A-C section, there is this statement:

Throughout most of its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism - which, they argue, can be maintained only by state violence.

Can someone provide a link to the (or any) argument that capitalism can be maintained only by state violence? I'd like to see how that is formulated. --Serge 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked for links, but here is my understanding of the issue: Capitalism is based on private property. And private property can only exist as long as there is someone willing to use violence to enforce it. Historically, private property has been enforced by the state. Thus, capitalism has rested on state violence.

Ancaps want to replace the state with a collection of competing private institutions. But they still need "men with guns" to defend their social order. Most anarchists (and most people in general) believe that private competing institutions would fail to agree on a common legal framework and would eventually start fighting each other. -- Nikodemos 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Defending your body and external property, or paying someone to do it for you, does not make you a State. What would make you a State is that you force others to finance that protection --you tax --you initiate force. Support of private defense is not unique to anarcho-capitalists. Individualist anarchists in general support private defense of person and property. For individualists, using force in defense is consistent with anarchism. It's actually viewed as essential, because it's not a utopian doctrine --they don't expect people to all of a sudden stop having a proclivity to attack people and steal from people. So, there has to be defensive force in order to protect anarchy. 19th century individualist anarchist, Victor Yarros (not an anarcho-capitalist) explains, "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." And, "The anarchists, as anarchists, work directly, not for a perfect social state, but for a perfect political system. A perfect social state is a state totally free from sin or crime of folly; a perfect political system in which justice is observed, in which nothing is punished but crime and nobody coerced but invaders." Of course, anarcho-communists oppose such a thing. "While social anarchists seek to abolish the state as the source of private property, the individualists want to eliminate it because they see it as an obstacle to private property." (Ulrike Heider, Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green) All of the individualists support private defense of person and property, whether they're capitalist or not. RJII 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the primary defence of revolutionary anarchism is that the violent revolution is in self-defense. I have no sources for this, so I won't add it to the article, but I'm sure some can be dug up as I've seen them before. Two-Bit Sprite 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This still isn't a source. Your personal understanding of the issue is not encyclopedic, I believe the original question was asking for a reliable source. Two-Bit Sprite 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A source for that would have to be defining capitalism in its own idiosyncratic way. The common modern definition of capitalism doesn't indicate any such requirement: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market" (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary). Whether property is protected by the state or privately is not relevant to the definition. Now some of the old individualist anarchists defined capitalism as the concentration of capital in the hands of a few brought about by state-enforced monopoly (such as forbidding competition in banking). According to them "capitalism," by that defintion would not exist if the state stopped interfering with competition. But, that's a pretty old/obscure definition of capitalism. And, they still believed in private ownership of capital and a market economy. RJII 03:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

: "But they still need 'men with guns' to defend their social order." Doesn't every social order need men with guns to defend it? Otherwise, other men with guns will impose their own social order on society, right?—Nat Krause 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. That's what liberals think because their societies are an atomized mess constantly on the verge of collapse, but anarchists believe in spontaneous order. Sarge Baldy 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But, that spontaneous order is premised on individuals having the freedom to do what they want. Without that freedom, there is inefficiency and chaos. So unless there are "guns" protecting individual freedom, there is not going to be any spontaenous order unless you expect people to lose their taste for violence and aggressing against each other. I don't know what you're talking about "liberals" because liberalism is all about spontaneous order that comes about from people having the freedom to pursue their self-interest --from Proudhon, through Adam Smith (the invisible hand), on down through Rothbard. "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order" -Proudhon RJII 04:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The freedom to be free isn't compatible with the freedom to enslave people, to kill people, or to be hit with sticks by police. You can't have both the freedom to coerce and the freedom from coercion. It doesn't even make any sense. You want the freedom to self interest; I want freedom from a bunch of self-interested vampires trying to exploit me, the freedom to clean air, the freedom from bureaucracy and capitalism and private property. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't allow those freedoms; if someone is shoving a gun down your throat for doing something, it's pretty evident you're not "free" to do it, no matter who the hell is holding the gun. I say "liberal" society to mean an atomized society where every person is seen as an enemy to every other person, who might use them to their own ends or compete against their interests, rather than one in which people have enough connection to other people they aren't liable to kill them or rape them or sell them out for a few bucks. Sarge Baldy 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How are you going to have freedom from anything without forcefully protecting that freedom? Without a weapon, without fighting back against initiations of force against you, you're a sitting duck waiting to be enslaved. RJII 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you have to organize a society that's self-sustaining. Anarcho-capitalists have such a "the world is evil" liberal mindset they can't even conceive of a society in which people see each other as human beings rather than as resources, even though practically every small scale community is like that because they recognize that once you atomize the society everyone will starve to death. Sarge Baldy 04:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not seeing people as human beings? You may be a gentle soul, but don't generalize. Many human beings are vicious animals and enjoy being so. What are you going to do to defend your anarchy from these people? If nothing, then anarchy is impossible. They'll institute a state and dominate you. RJII 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there we fall back to the "nature vs nurture" thing. I've taken enough criminology classes to know that people are much more a product of their environments than of their biological makeup. All the biological explanations are pretty much considered dead in the water. Biology has some role in predisposing people to behaviors, but under the right circumstances they won't act on them. I'm not very worried about "vicious animals", because I consider human nature dynamic and not static. Organize things properly, and even people with a biological predisposition won't act out. Look at the societies here for some examples of how some groups have organized in ways in which violence didn't exist. Especially inciteful are the Paliyans and Piaroa , who are generally recognized as anarchist or very close to it by anthropologists. (The Paliyans, incidently, might very much appeal to an individualist anarchist, despite their obvious distaste for competition.) Sarge Baldy 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Organize things properly"? That doesn't sound very anarchistic. In anarchy, there is no organizer. Organization emerges inadvertently under the condition of FIRST having liberty. Nothing can be organized, period, without first having the liberty to organize. Also, if people didn't have a biological predisposition to violence, then there would have been no one to cast the first punch. There would have been no one to institute the first State. Human nature hasn't changed one bit. States exist because it is in human nature to create states. Anarchists exists because it is in human nature to oppose States. There will always be the conflict between States and people wanting freedom from States. I think Proudhon eventually came to recognized this in his "antinomies" --anarchy is a "perpetual desideratum," he said. (And, by that time he had come to conclude that "private property" was necessary in order to protect the individual from the State having too much power over the individual). RJII 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You can't have a system without "organizing". By "organizing" I mean the process by which you get from where we are to where we end up. Removing the state is "organizing". If removing the state is non-anarchist, then I have no idea what your plan is. I already said people have a biological predisposition to violence; and that that disposition can easily be overcome. I don't know, there's just no point arguing with someone who's already convinced himself that people fit into some narrow box. It's all just a complete tautology. It's hard to argue with someone when they're talking in circles. You can point out examples of societies who have never heard of violence or can't even comprehend the idea, or show how rates of violence differ wildly across the globe, but it doesn't mean anything when people choose to stick blindly to an unsupported biological ideology that complements every part of their entire world view. Sarge Baldy 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't organize without the liberty to organize. The conditions for establishing anarchy require anarchy itself. That's why all anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is an absurdity. It just amounts to saying "I want anarchy." So what? There are others that want statism who will invade your little spontaneous anarchy and enslave and exploit you for everything you've got. RJII 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A better place for discussing this might be livejournal, or anarhism.net. Two-Bit Sprite 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy: "Organize things properly, and even people with a biological predisposition won't act out. ... Especially inciteful are the Paliyans and Piaroa."

Like RJII, I'm very suspicious of people wanting to "organize things properly." Sounds like imposed authority to me. I'd be more convinced if you could offer some invisable hand process applicable to modern society. The examples you cite concern hunter-gatherers, with the Piaroa adding some primitive agriculture. It worries me that it would take a plague or something wiping out 98% of the world population to implement. The strategies for avoiding violence in the cultures cited seem totally unworkable except in a primative hunter-gatherer scenerio - disappear into the woods for the Paliyans, belief in magic supernatural karma for the Piaroa. Sarge, are you a primitivist hoping for the vast majority of humankind to die off? WickedWanda 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And I find the idea of a police force the most obvious possible example of "imposed authority". In fact, anarcho-capitalism sounds about as fun as Stalinism to me. All systems have to be "organized", unless your system is complete chaos. The difference is, in anarchism the system is organized and then left alone, because it's seen as stable and working. In anarcho-capitalism, the system is never stable or working, so you have police forces making sure everything stays properly organized to the authoritarian tenets set up by the presidents of the individual states, er, I mean PDAs. Sarge Baldy 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "stable" that you're applying is bizarre. People do act. The world also changes on its own. Therefore, nothing is ever truly stable. When circumstances place pressure on something to change, people sometimes act to maintain them the way they were. That doesn't mean the situation is not stable, in the sense in which that word is normally applied to human affairs.—Nat Krause 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many indigenous tribes were very stable for thousands of years. Thousands of years is stable enough for me, seeing as the only reason those societies broke apart was because of greedy colonial powers looking to exploit them. That's because those societies organized themselves in a way that was stable, sustainable, and orderly. There was no reason for them to change. Looking at the history of human life on the planet, societies that rapidly change are the oddball ones, the least stable ones, and the least sustainable ones. Not to mention the ones with the most anomie and violence. Sarge Baldy 07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, if you want a society that is totally pacifist, and runs away and hides in the woods when their rights get violated (like the Paliyans), then I can understand why you'd think organized self-defense is a state. But most anarchists are not pacifists, and most anarchists embrace technology and modern society. We are not willing to jettison science and go back to primitive superstition. I think most anarchists realize that personal or group defense of rights is not, ipso facto, a state. WickedWanda 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and the talk pages are for discussing the content of the encyclopedia, not for debating the subject matter

Two-Bit Sprite 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point.—Nat Krause 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this talk page tends to drift in that direction pretty naturally. I don't think it's so bad until it gets uncivil. It's better that it gets brought up here rather than in the article itself. Seeing as the largest debate in this article regards the degree to which much of the subject matter is appropriate, I don't think it's fair to say such dialogue doesn't belong on the talk page. Although you're right to say this particular discussion went "off the rails". Sarge Baldy 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anticapitalism fact citation

Throughout most of its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism - which, they argue, can be maintained only by state violence.

Can someone provide a link to the (or any) argument that capitalism can be maintained only by state violence? I'd like to see how that is formulated. --Serge 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Serge,

First, recall the difference in emphasis between socialist and libertarian uses of the word 'capitalism'. See the citation of Wendy McElroy in Anarcho-Capitalism and the second paragraph of anarchism and capitalism. Socialists tend to mean 'presently-existing capitalism', while libertarians tend to mean the unrealized ideal of complete laissez-faire.

Second, the citation needed tag is entirely phoney. Three-quarters of the article is about anarchists who believe that abolition of the state necessarily entails the abolition of capital. If that isn't proof of the widespread belief that capitalism is maintained by state violence, I don't know what is.

But I draw your attention to the Anarchist faq, particularly the following sections:

• http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secCcon.html
• http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secGcon.html
• http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append1.html

There you will find the argument fleshed out more fully, with citations of historical anarchist thinkers.

In conclusion, I ask that the tag be removed. Also, I address the following appeal to my anarcho-capitalist friends: Please, before you edit the article again, take a little bit of time to read up on the historical anarchist movement. It is not, of course, required that Misplaced Pages editors actually know about the subjects they edit on, but it really does help smooth things out. Bacchiad 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the problem's been solved with the insertion of as they understand the term. This effectively acknowleges the different use of the term "capitalism" you note above. WickedWanda 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This solves the issue for me. Two-Bit Sprite 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So socialists use "capitalism" to mean presently-existing capitalism, "while libertarians tend to mean the unrealized ideal of complete laissez-faire."

That strikes me as an incomplete categorization. Libertarians use "capitalism" as the name of an ideal and as the name of those forces within the present world that may in the fullness of time bring that ideal into reality. It is a way of identifying with the liquidated kulaks of the past, the burdened entrepreneurs of the present, as well as of the better world that will neither burden nor liquidate such productive folk in the future. It isn't just wool-gathering of the "wouldn't it be nice" sort you imply above. --Christofurio 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said.—Nat Krause 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. My point was that market distortions like corporate welfare and favorable regulation is classed as anti-capitalist in libertarian use, but essentially capitalist in socialist use. Bacchiad 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Socialists tend to conflate statist capitalism and market capitalism, whereas libertarians are quite keen on the distinction. Libertarians usually refer to statist capitalism as "fascism," and existing capitalism as "a mixed economy." WickedWanda 13:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said. As a market-friendly social anarchist, I generally try to say 'state capitalism' for the first, 'market exchange' for the second, and avoid saying 'capitalism' semplice at all. Bacchiad 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

User:Max rspct removed Ward Churchill from the Cultural Phenomena section, with an edit summary claiming Churchill is not an anarchist. Although I can't say for sure that he is, I know he has anarchist leanings. He recently spoke at the Bay Area Anarchist bookfair on the topic of anarchism and indigenous societies (at least that's what my friends said, I wasn't there). Anyway, I think this should be discussed. The Ungovernable Force 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an indymedia interview...

When asked whether he considers himself an anarchist he says: "I consider myself to be an indigenist and that would be somewhat related to anarchism, we have a lot of common ground in terms of understanding - we can communicate, we can work in alliance fairly easily." (Barbara Bovine interview).

In one of his COINTELPRO talks he has vaunted the (up to) 1920's IWW and "..how would the history of the United States have developed if an anarcho-syndicalist movement with a highly developed political conscienceness and an agenda in effective tactics had not been obliterated by the mass trial of it's leadership in 1919 but had ultimately evolved and grown, according to it's own dynamics and it's own ability to articulate it's message to the public at large - what would the nature of the US labour movement have looked like, what would the work relations in American workplaces look like, how would it be different from the way it is now. I think you can probably connect those dots and trace it out in such a way to understand that things would be very very different and in a very, very positive form than the way things are now... " He goes on.

I have both recordings for these, but no transcripts. `--maxrspct in the mud 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So he says that things would be very, very postive compared to today if an anarcho-syndicalist organization had not been virtually destroyed. Wouldn't that make you think he is an anarchist? A lot of people don't claim the label anarchist, but would often be called anarchist nonetheless. I think he should at least be mentioned, perhaps with qualifiers. The Ungovernable Force 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people don't want to call themselves anarchist just because they don't like applying labels to themselves in general. So they kind of skirt around them and hint about it and let people figure it out for themselves. I don't know who seriously disputes Le Guin is an anarchist, although apparently "someone" removed her too. Sarge Baldy 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The stated criteria is "celebrities who publicly identify themselves as anarchists." That was the reason Robert Heinlein and others got deleted. From Takver's Anarres Comments on Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed and Anarchism

"Le Guin is careful not to label herself so she can speak and be heard to a very wide audience. ...

Refer to the preface to the short story 'The Day before the Revolution' published in the anthology 'The Winds Twelve Quarters Vol2' It is written by Le Guin 'In Memorial to Paul Goodman 1911-1972'. An excerpt....

'Odonianism is anarchism. Not the bomb-in-the-pocket stuff, which is terrorism, whatever name it tries to dignify itself with, not the social-Darwinist economic 'libertarianism' of the far right; but anarchism, as prefigured in early Taoist thought, and expounded by Shelley and Kropotkin, Goldman and Goodman. Anarchism's principal target is the authoritarian State (capitalist or socialist); its principle moral-practical theme is cooperation (solidarity, mutual aid). It is the most idealistic, and to me the most interesting, of all political theories.'

This is as close a statement Le Guin has come to identifying with anarchism that I have found in her writings. But together with her activism as a person and as a writer, it is clear she understands the philosophy of anarchism and shares a close affinity."

WickedWanda 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well,, Winston Churchill when quizzed in parliament about his attitude to the invasion of the Soviet Union by nazi germany stated "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.". Doesnt make him of a communist or marxist persuasion. An extreme example... but the same goes for George Galloway and Iraq etc (Galloway isn't a Baathist or pro-dictator). --maxrspct in the mud 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of that. Maybe it's just me though. The Ungovernable Force 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is too POV to put Ward Churchill in there. He has spoke an anarchist bookfairs.. But is not written up anywhere (i know of) as being Anarchist.. tho the christian right often call him a Marxist .. which is quite off the mark considering Ward C's writings on the subject. --maxrspct in the mud 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So say he is often considered an anarchist. Or else change the criteria to people who either self-label as anarchists or are commonly considered anarchists. And I agree he is not Marxist, in fact he says in one of the notes to Pacifism as Pathology that he is "strongly anti-marxist in political perspectives and practices ".--The Ungovernable Force 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He is almost always listed as Native American activist. It's not our job to speculate.--maxrspct in the mud 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalization and capitalism

What's the deal on removing the globalization paragraph from the capitalism section? Bacchiad 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now in the "Other Issues" section. The Ungovernable Force 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't it belong logically in the capitalism section? Bacchiad 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should. Although I suppose neoliberalism and capitalism are mildly distinct, it's clear that they're related, and most anarchists involved in the movement are clearly anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine in either place. Globalization is distinct from plain capitalism IMO, but if you want it in the capitalism section too, just put it back. I don't know who changed it though, do you? The Ungovernable Force 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous user keeps moving it out every time I put it there. Bacchiad 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's there now so we'll see what happens. The Ungovernable Force 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was that anon that was playing with the article earlier, it turned out to be an open proxy and I blocked it yesterday. Sarge Baldy 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy, gee, I wonder who that was? The Ungovernable Force 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved Globalization in its own subsection since it's distinct from capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 09:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Is (with certainty) a minor and insignificant point of view, and as per WP:NPOV, does not require a detailed account in the article. A simple summary is enough. -- infinity0 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating it as a "minor and insignificant point of view" is obviously biased, since it is the main living modern form of anarchism. Let's see some citation for your claim. Re the Rothbard picture, let's compare with other guys with pictures.

Google hits:

Bakunin 1,370,000; Michael Bakunin 291,000 Mikhail Bakunin 202,000

Proudhon 1,200,000; Pierre Proudhon 540,000

Rothbard 1,040,000; Murray Rothbard 643,000

Kropotkin 810,000; Peter Kropotkin 325,000

It's too bad that, after getting an consensus for a while, you come in and ruin it, Infinity0. Rather than denigrating anarcho-capitalism, I think it should be elevated to a school in the individualist camp. WickedWanda 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Selected statistics mean nothing. Take it up with the millions of non-anarcho-capitalist anarchists out there. -- infinity0 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard is primarily known as an economist. Also, because he's more recent he gets more hits. That's just how the internet works. Chomsky gets 11,500,000 Google hits, does that mean we should give him some huge giant image? (Edit: and that's just for "Noam Chomsky" - "Chomsky" alone gets over 18 million, or almost 18 times Rothbard.) Sarge Baldy 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky should - and does - have a picture. Anarcho-capitalism is a significant school of anarchism and should have similar space to, say, anarcho-syndicalism. 64.79.194.175 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't one sockpuppet at a time enough for you? Sarge Baldy 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WickedWanda, please sit back and realise that what you are doing is not useful for an encyclopedia. Understand and accept that your own view is minor and that detailed information about it should not be in this specific article. Anarcho-capitalism is sufficiently distinct from anarchism that there should not be detailed information here, beacuse it is irrelevant. It has its own article for the detail. -- infinity0 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Although a brief mention of anarcho-capitalism is in order, I agree that it has little to do with anarchism and should not be given any prominent treatment in this article. That's what this is for. Anyway, the opinion of a blocked user's sockpuppet doesn't really mean that much to me or anyone else in this community. The Ungovernable Force 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WickedWanda, anarcho-capitalism is not a minor and insignificant point of view in anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "Anarchism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
2. Engels, Friedrich (1884). Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (HTML). Retrieved 2006-04-28.
3. Daniel Guerin, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970).

• Unassessed Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)