Talk:Anarchism

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

• Posts from Sept. 13 to Sept. 26 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive43. Hogeye 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-09-27 to 2006-10-06 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive44. -- infinity0 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-10-07 to 2006-11-03 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive45. -- Donnacha 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally some wolfie sockblocks

I have just now (finally, you may all well say) blocked User:Doctors without suspenders indefinitely as a wolfie sock. Along with User:Radiant hedgehog, User:Aithérios, and, I expect, more to come. It's very difficult to keep so many socks going and never slip up. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Hooray! Blockader 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on end of civilization

Anarchists input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Marshall and anarcho-capitalism

I changed this: "However, Peter Marshall says in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice" to this: "However, Peter Marshall says in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp" because he believes "they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice" in order to make it NPOV - to show it is his POV. I don't think it can be asserted that anarcho-capitalists are not concerned with economic equality and social justice. It depends on how you define economic equality. I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I support economic equality. Economic equality to me means equal economic rights. But if you define economic equality as equal wealth, then anarcho-capitalists do not support that. "Social justice" is another vague term. If the article says that anarcho-capitalists oppose economic equality and social justice then these things should be defined.Anarcho-capitalism 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Peter Marshall is incorrect, because the consequence of his thesis is to remove individualist anarchism from the "anarchist camp" as well. From Benjamin Tucker's Instead of a Book (as quoted in Madison 1943):

“ Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labor; it will abolish all means whereby any laborer can be deprived of any of his product; but it will not abolish the limited inequality between one laborer's product and another's....Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich." (emphasis mine) ”

Peter Marshall thus represents a marginal view which is moreover incorrect, and his statement should accordingly be removed. Which I will do. Intangible 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Original Research to decide whether or not a properly cited source is correct or not and to remove it for that reason. It is not Peter Marshall's view that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp because they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice", it is the view of the vast majority of anarchists who reject "anarcho-capitalism" because of its support for extreme economic inequality and hatred of any form of social activism. Donnacha 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a marginal view to say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. But Marshall goes even further and says that individualist anarchism is not anarchism. It would be given undue weight to the views of Marshall if they were to be entered. Just because someone wrote a book, does not mean any of the book text should be entered into Wikipedia. Please review WP:NPOV. Intangible 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't a marginal view, the vast majority of anarchists oppose capitalism and, thus, view "anarcho"-capitalism as a contradiction in terms. Marshall cites the view of that majority that it is not anarchism. It's not his view, he doesn't argue anything, he quite correctly presents the opinion of the thousands, if not millions, of anarchists around the world who reject "anarcho"-capitalism. It's quite simple, anarchism is about equality and freedom. Oppose equality, you oppose freedom and thus anarchism. QED: "Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism. While so-called "social" anarchists (a term not generally used by those who are considered under it) criticise elements of mutualism and individualism, we recognise that they believed that what they argued for would lead to greater, if not absolute (which is an impossibility anyway) equality. The same is not true of anyone who supports the private control of the means of production and, thus, wage slavery (defined as a situation whereby an individual must sell their labour to meet their needs, not as as a system where people choose to work for another). Despite the lies about anarcho-communism spread by its opponents, we do not oppose working for a wage, we argue instead that voluntary association in a non-monetary system is a better option. Most of us envisage mixed economies with individual holdings beside communes beside collectives, co-operatives and mutualist set-ups. Donnacha 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"[M]oney, wages, and trade would be abolished" -Kropotkin And, "anarcho"-communists will only allow an amount of individual holdings that they believe "necessary" for those individuals that don't want to join the communist system. Anything above that amount would be stolen. Kropotkin said if a family doesn't want to join the communist system, then he would allow them "a house which affords them just as much space as under present average conditions of life, are considered necessary for that number of people." Well isn't that generous of him.Anarcho-capitalism 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, what about "it will not abolish the limited inequality between one laborer's product and another's....Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich" don't you understand? Intangible 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with English? "would lead to greater, if not absolute (which is an impossibility anyway) equality". That's exactly the same point - everyone rich=greater equality. Not equally rich - not absolute equality. Donnacha 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. The aim of market anarchists is to raise the wealth of everyone by keeping state interference out of the market - laissez-faire. It will result in the elimination of poverty but it will not lead to equal wealth. It could very well lead to increased inequality in terms of wealth or income - we don't know for sure. But, if the choice is between equal wealth and liberty, we market anarchists will choose liberty. It doesn't matter if the next guy has more money than me as long as we both have the right to private property and trade.Anarcho-capitalism 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, this is not what Marshall is saying. Marshall is quite explicit in referring to "economic inequality," a kind of inequality that also exist under liberty according to individualist anarchism. Therefore Marshall's statement is useless. If you want to continue this discussion, you should first find sources that can support your claim. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages...are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." You have not done that. Intangible 07:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawman after strawman after strawman - try responding to the things I actually write. Marshall is a secondary source, he's describing the view of most anarchists. As one of those, I agree with what he says. Thus, his quote is correct about those to whom he attributes the view. Economic inequality, as referred to by Marshall, is the fundamental element of anarchism, the element that excludes "anarcho"-capitalism. Economic inequality is private ownership of the means of production and the system of wage slavery. Economic inequality doesn't mean financial inequality in the sense that a has more than b, it means economic inequality where economic power is concentrated in the hands of the owners of capital. Good jaysus, this is basic stuff. Marshall doesn't define it in that specific section because it's the basic theme of the entire history of anarchism. It's what the bloody book is about! Donnacha 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is neither here not there to talk about the rest of the book, one is only concerned with that particular statement Marshall made. I've shown that Marschall is inconsistent, namely that he is making a logical error in dismissing anarcho-capitalism from the anarchist camp because of "economic inequalities," while these "economic inequalities" exist for individualist anarchism as well. You here are the only one making strawman arguments, I have shown a coherent and logical argument, based on third party statements, while you are just relying on what you think is "true," a WP:OR notion at best. Intangible 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Complete claptrap. As it states quite succinctly in the Economic egalitarianism article here "Economic egalitarianism is a state of affairs in which the members of a society are of equal standing in terms of economic power or wealth. It is a founding principle of various forms of socialism." (emphasis mine) Economic egalitarianism is the same thing as economic equality. Thus, the views of the individualists about creating a level playing field where some people, due to greater talent or effort, might end up richer than others, falls under this definition. Any form of Capitalism, which retains economic hierarchies, does not. Marshall doesn't "define the term" in that quote because anyone who knows anything about radical politics knows well what it means. Finally, it is completely POV and OR to remove a properly quoted and cited piece of criticism because you either don't agree with it or think it's incorrect. I disagree with most criticisms of libertarian communism from all parties and think they're incorrect, yet I do not seek to remove references to them once their properly placed in criticisms sections. Donnacha 16:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of OR, while you base your argument on an unsourced Wikipedia article?! There is nothing in individualist anarchism that even remotely comes close to your unsourced "economic egalitarianism" notion. The only equality individualist anarchists believe in is that of equal liberty, self-ownership for all. Nothing more, nothing less. Intangible 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Jaysis sake, you really are impossible. I'm not basing any arguement on a Wikipedia article, I happen to be an expert on this topic. The Wikipedia article just happens to give a perfectly succinct statement of economic egalitarianism. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the topics you criticise or claim to be part of if you think any anarchist (apart from "anarcho"-capitalists") support anything other than an even playing field in economic terms. All the individualists argued for equality of opportunity, which is an example of economic egalitarianism. The quote you have continually used is an example of that, "Liberty will ultimately make all men rich" - greater equality. Anarcho-communists and collectivists, of course, go further, though not as far as people like you claim - they argue for equality of access, but imagine a post-scarcity economy where there is more than enough for everyone. You reject so-called "social" anarchism without knowing what it is or (it seems) even the basic principles, and you claim commonality with individual anarchists while attributing views and arguments to them that they never held. Donnacha 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So now you base your argument based on authority? With your OR notions I could easily argue that anarcho-capitalism is egalitarian as well. All irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot argue that individualist-anarchism is egalitarian without a reliable source. I have presented a reliable source that says individualist-anarchism are not economic egalitarians. You have presented nothing. Intangible 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, clearly you do have a problem understanding plain English, so there is no point in discussing this further with you. You obviously know nothing about anarchism, which proves more than anything else that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. I think it's time to look for binding arbitration on this page. Donnacha 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you actually start presenting sources on this talk page, you shouldn't even be talking about binding arbitration. Intangible 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Intangible 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from another nineteenth century individualist, Laurance Labadie: "In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to services rendered. Free competition will see to that."Anarcho-capitalism 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be the Laurance Labadie who called anarchism "voluntary socialism", would it? At least have the decency to acknowledge that he, like his father, considered anarchism to be a form of socialism. BlackFlag 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Marshall article is a strange article. It's difficult to tell what he is saying. He seems to say here that Benjamin Tucker was an anarcho-capitalist: "The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal Liberty in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers."Anarcho-capitalism 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is only "strange" if you do not understand anarchism or read Marshall out of context. And he is not saying that Tucker is an anarcho-capitalist, if you bothered to read what he said about him in the section on Tucker. BlackFlag, 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Marshall states that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." Well, hate to point this out but that is just a statement of fact. If in doubt, look at the anarchism entry in wikipedia! Or in the anarchist press (like Freedom, Direct Action, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Organise!, Anarchy, North-Eastern Anarchist, Black Flag, and so many others -- and that is just English language ones). And not to mention the web. So, to suggest that Marshall is wrong is simply to show utter ignorance about the anarchist movement. BlackFlag 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This should help clarify the nonsense "anarcho-capitalist" is spreading about economic equality. Here is anarcho-communist Alexander Berkman on this issue: "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness." (The ABC of Anarchism) In other words, if we take "anarcho-capitalist" argument seriously (and we should not), then all anarchists are against "economic equality" as he defines it!

So, perhaps we can do with the silly strawman arguments, eh? It is obvious that individualist anarchists argued that their ideas would result in greater equality but not a levelling -- as did other anarchists. The key issue here is that "anarcho-capitalists" differ from this perspective as they explicitly reject egalitarianism and are indifferent to inequalities in wealth (and so power). The same cannot be said of the individualist anarchists, particularly given as they repeatedly noted they expected their ideas to produce greater equality (as quoted by "anarcho-capitalist" above, so proving he cannot understand plain English). They did call themselves socialists for a reason... BlackFlag 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The only "egalitarianism" of Benjamin Tucker, as Madison notes, is that

“ He demanded liberty above all, including the liberty for man to control what he produced, as "the surest guarantuee of prosperity." The policy of complete non-interference—enabling everyone to mind his own business exclusively—would permit wealth "to distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural operation of economic law." (emphasis mine) ”

Economic law for individualist anarchism was based on the false notion of the labour theory of value, while anarcho-capitalism economic theory is largely based on subject value theory, which can also be found in neoclassical economics that is taught at 1000s of universities around the world. There is no notion in individualist anarchism that wealth should be distributed differently, and as Madison noted, Benjamin Tucker "rejected the ideal of moral obligation or the existence of inherent rights and duties, he did acknowledge the duty of society to restrain and punish the invasive individual." This "societal duty" to which Madison refers to is police protection and justice, which for individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is just a commodity to be purchased on the free market. Intangible 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously missed it when Tucker wrote he "insists on Socialism . . . on true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." (Instead of a Book, p. 363)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackFlag (talk • contribs)

What are you trying to suggest here? Intangible 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

This is getting very tedious. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists have already debunked anarcho-capitalism as being a contradiction. You cannot have capitalism without the existence of the state. I will also add once again that no anarchist anthology that I know of includes articles by or about anarcho-capitalists. No anarchist bookstore that I've ever been into has contained any anarcho-capitalist books. Anarcho-capitalism is a nonsensical belief system promoted by a handful of people who don't understand anarchism OR capitalism. Chuck0 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that discuss anarcho-capitalism, positive and negative. And ancap works are readily available from many on-line bookstores. Intangible 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs)

A conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment all you want, but you're not going to be able to get me kicked off of Wipedia, because I haven't committed any of the crimes you and your anti-capitalist cohorts have claimed.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm responding to the RFC.

First and foremost, it would be lovely if everyone just cooled down and stepped back. This is one sentence in a very large article that is well written and informative. Kudos to all who have obviously worked very hard on it.

The segment on Capitolism begins like this:

"Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative."

To my mind, this pretty much sums up the mainstream Anarchist view. The sentence in question is this:

"However, Peter Marshall writes in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." [84]"

The first sentence already establishes that the Anarcho-Capitalist views on Capitalism are outside the mainstream of Anarchist thought. The second sentence relates Peter Marshall's SUPPOSITION that the viewpoint of most Anarchists to the Anarcho-Capitalist perception of Capitalism WOULD BE negative. While it may be a truism, the quote does not describe a fact.

Everyone seems to agree that the first sentence is a fact, since it has not been argued. A person reading this segment would already understand that the Anarcho-Capitalist view of Capitalism is outside the mainstream of Anarchist thought. A further explaination of that viewpoint, particularly after reading the entire article, is not necessary. Using a supposition is even less necessary.

For the record, I was a member of an Anarchist collective in Chicago for three years. I had no clue there was such a thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. I would tend to believe that there are more Anarchists who know nothing about Anarcho-Capitalism than Anarchists who know about it and actively oppose it.

It would be great if the Anarcho-Capitalists here could put in their segment some information about how Anarcho-Capitalism is different from Libertarianism, because I don't see the difference.

Thanks, NinzEliza 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there's two things here. Firstly, the RFC is about a consistent attitude, not this one sentence. If you look at the RFC page, you'll see numerous example. It would be good if you could leave a comment there after looking at the whole picture. Now, on the paragraph on capitalism, the first line says "Most anarchist traditions", not all. This is a compromise as "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of anarchist tradition, so it is more accurate to say "All anarchist traditions". However, we're not arguing about that. Then we get the "anarcho"-capitalists insisting on adding in their attitude to capitalism, which is an extreme minority view and thus is Undue Weight. However, here we have more compromise - they can add their view only so long as the fact that anarchists reject "anarcho"-capitalism is clearly stated. This is done through a properly cited quote, as per proper policy. Donnacha 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to me that the single defining factor of Anarchism is the opposition to State and state control. I read the article on anarcho-captialism, and they are indeed against State and state control. I would disagree with you that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists.

There is an entire article discussing the difficutlties between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists - why not just link to that article?

The quote in Dispute is a SUPPOSITION - it is not a fact:

"However, Peter Marshall writes in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." [84]"

If you can find a source that relates a fact, like a survey of Anarchists or an extremely large body of Anarchists that have explicitly expressed the same viewpoint, that would be useful and encyclopedic.

It would be natural to assume that anarcho-capitalists, since they call themselves anarcho-CAPTIALISTS, would hold a different view of capitalism than other anarchists. Therefore, it would be natural and encyclopedic to express that view in the section on capitalism.

As for the the idea that anarcho-capitalists espouse an "extreme minority view", I googled "anarcho-capitalism" and got 606,000 hits. There are three yahoo groups that call themselves anarcho-capitalist, and altogether their membership is roughly 5000. Certainly, the mainstream school of Anarchist THOUGHT is much larger and older, but the NUMBER of people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists today versus the number of more "mainstream" anarchists remains to be seen.

I think your concern here has more to do with anarcho-captialism espousing a view that appears fundamentally ANTITHETICAL and even OFFENSIVE to other anarchists, or perhaps anarchist thought in general - regardless of the number of people who hold the anarcho-capitalist view. This statement:

"Anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a form of individualist anarchism lying outside the mainstream of anti-capitalistic anarchism."

apparently doesn't go far enough to express that viewpoint.

However, is it really the job of THIS article to express the opinions that one (or even many) body(s) of anarchists has (have) towards another body of anarchists? If it is, then in the interest of fairness and objectivity, ALL opinions (communist vs. syndicalist, individualist vs. egoist, etc.) would need to documented. I put forth that it's outside the mission of this encyclopedia to do so. The reader who happens upon this article can follow the links and read further for him/her self. Furthermore, I suggest that it would be counter-intuitive for the reader to believe after reading this article that anarcho-capitalist thought holds anything other than a minority viewpoint.

It's an unfortunate reality that we sometimes have to share our bed with people that we don't like. As a black activist, I do it all the time. Like it or not, anarcho-capitalists are a part of the tribe. In the interest of...getting things done, I hope everyone can set aside the fighting and personal dislike in order to settle this.

Once again, I think the article is great. I hope to see it as a featured article someday. I congratulate everyone on their hard work. I understand the heated debate here, but let's look at the big picture. The article is simply relating all the schools of Anarchist thought. NinzEliza 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, a Google search on "flat-earthers" gets roughly 109,000 hits. Libertatia 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The current Flat Earth Society also has a well-written article in Wikipedia.NinzEliza 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That does mean they should have much say in the entries on schools of geography. The (OR) evidence of careful searches on Google, YahooGroups, MySpace, TEchnorati, etc, suggests quite strongly that anarcho-capitalism is in fact a mostly North American minority position within the broad anarchist movement. The historical record shows the an-caps as a divergence from pretty much everything else that could be called anarchism prior to the mid-20th century. That evidence is basically inadmissible. And the point is largely moot, as the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism in the anarchist entries on Wikipedia is a fait accompli. There are two continuing problems here: one is certainly the polarizing insistence of a few editors on both sides on using their definitions of disputed terms, as if they were indisputable; the other is that Wikipedia's rules allow inaccurate and imprecise summaries to be cited as more authoritative than the primary sources that generally weren't consulted in composing them, with the result that what passes for research here closely resembles that game of "telephone," as the details get more garbled with each pass. Libertatia

Theres not much point at all in this identification between flat-eathers and anarcho-capitalist, as compared to round-eathers (or whatever you wanna call them) in general and anarchist. While being a flat-earter would be nothing short of a dogmatic viewpoint towards geography the traditional anarchist position towards anarcho-capitalism is indeed as well a dogmatic viewpoint, while everything supporting that this ting were on is a globe is plain and simple facts, facts everybody can test for themselves with more or less ease! That said the conclusion should be that because traditional anarchism isnt fact based in its opposition to anarcho-capitalism (but based on definitions thats not in any way onesided), all talk about facts should be deleted from the article when theres no facts to talk about (All talk about how many or how few on one side or the other is talk about facts, facts that not available!), and all necessary sides on any definitions should be represented. --Fjulle 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism of all kinds has been, continues to be and will always be, opposed to capitalism as much as the state. Thus, its opposition to "anarcho"-capitalism is based in fact, the simple fact that "anarcho"-capitalists support things that anarchists oppose. It's that simple. It's not dogmatic to oppose those who disagree with you and reject their attempted appropriation of your name. Donnacha 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I put this whole thing in the wrong place - I was responding to the REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE, which is listed on the RFC page. It was not my intention to respond to the RFC on the conduct dispute. NinzEliza 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments NinzEliza. They are like a breath of fresh air. Discussion here seems to revolve in circles too much of the time, and opinion of someone like you is indeed very welcome. -- Vision Thing -- 21:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues Section

Why is the communism para in the issues devoted 90% to explaining which and why some anarchists OPPOSE communism while the capitalism para in the same section is devoted 90% to explaining which and why some anarchists are FOR capitalism. this is an obvious POV issue to anyone of an even remotely neutral stance and i challenge anyone here to review the 2 paragraphs and maintain there is not a POV problem. one deals with which anarchists are pro-capitalism while the other deals with which anarchists are anti-communism. what the fuck? if the majority of the communism para is going to explain why certain anarchists have a problem with communism than the majority of the capitalism para should likewise explain why certian anarchists have a problem with capitalism. this is common sense. i thought i would bring this up here before i do anything about it. Blockader 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That is kind of strange. It does say "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative." But, probably a few sentences more can be said in criticism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Because this page is now dominated by disruptive POV-pushing right-wingers who have exhausted the patience of virtually every other editor on this page. For example. Donnacha 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I think most of the POV pushing is coming from anti-anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if the POV-pushing is coming from anti-capitalists it is indeed odd that the bulk of most of the articles on non-capitalist ideologies are spent on answering criticisms. Anti-capitalist articles have far more criticism from capitalists and right-wing elements on them than vice versa. The Anarcho-Communist page is underdeveloped compared to the Mutualist, Individualist and Capitalist Anarchism pages and half of it is criticisms from non-anarcho-communists and responses from anarcho-communists. However, the Anarcho-Capitalist page as well as the Individualist and Mutualist Anarchist pages have most of their space dedicated to explaining the theory with a relatively small section of criticism. Full Shunyata 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than spending time on a lengthy refutation of the Anarcho-Capitalist view of Capitalism, it would be helpful to expand the mainstream Anarchist view of Capitalism. This is what Blockader was asking for, and Anarcho-Capitalism supports this. NinzEliza 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That would involve citing any number of anarchist magazines, journals and books. I have a whole basement full of these materials containing anarchists writing about capitalism. Of course, citing this vast body of written works would involve doing actual research, which is anathema to Wikipedians who prefer to pull "facts" out of their collective asses. Chuck0 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now its your books, so youll have to do it ... Unless you want to send em all to Denmark if you wants me to help, which is silly --Fjulle 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is chumbawumba really the most famous UK Anarchist band??

i live in the uk, and i have never heard of chumbawumba, on the other hand bands such as the sex pistols (who use anarchist themes) and the Clash, are world famous. I think this is a joke.

Please, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Clash were Marxists and supporters of the Sandinistas. The Sex Pistols were an elaborate joke. Neither were active anarchists. Chumbawamba, on the other hand, were politically active in Leeds AFA, Class War and numerous other anarchist campaigns. Also, there is no way you've never heard 'Tubthumping' ("I get a vodka drink, I get a whiskey drink"). Donnacha 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, if your a Brit and never head of Chumbawamumba you must live under a rock or something. Perhaps your a starfish? I'm an American and they've only had one hit here and it was when I was way younger, probably in elementary school but I know them. Most people in the States are pretty suprised to here they are anarchist though. And I agree with Donnacha, neither the Clash nor the Sex Pistols were anarchist. If there were a more popular UK anarchist band it would probably be Crass or Subhumans (my mom's even heard of the Subhumans, and she's not at all into punk). I still think Chumbawamba is more popular though. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about The Levellers? Fairly big following over there, I thought... Brennen 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They're cool, and from what I know they are big in the UK. Chumbawamba is by far more popular here in the States, but I'm not sure about in the UK, which is where they are both from. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, I'd say they have largely the same level of following these days, but the Levellers were more popular at the height of their popularity. However, that bleedin' vodka drink, whiskey drink song was one of the biggest hits of the 90s worldwide, so I think it wins. It was definitely more popular than the Levellers' "One Life" (and tha-at's your own, it's your own, it's your own!). Donnacha 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How can what any one of you think is the most popular anarchist band be relevant on wikipedia? Give sources that have made assesments that are trustworthy (And i can hardly believe thats possible) then there might be written which bands are the most popular. Else, anything about this should be rewritten! This is a very nice example of whats going wrong with the way this article is taken care of. A little respect for the wikipedia project please! --Fjulle 12:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For Jaysis sake, it says arguably the most popular band. It's not what I think, but I can find refs as to what chart positions Tubthumping reached if you really think it's that important. Donnacha 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From a U.S. pop chart perspective, Chumbawamba (which some people above seem to be having trouble spelling correctly) appears to be a one-hit wonder. *Dan T.* 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, Chumbaliwumbalies album Tubthumper went triple platinum in the US, far more than any other UK anarchist group has achieved. In contrast, the Levellers sold hardly any copies of "Levelling The Land" in the US and that was their most successful album. Donnacha 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

Intangible, i removed your POV tag becuase you did not list specific concerns regarding the article that you find in violation of NPOV on the talk page, which you are supposed to do when placing a POV tag. I will continue to do so as you are in violation of wikipedia conduct. If you don't state what you have a problem with than no one will be able to address it. I agree that there are POV problems, though likely not the same ones you identify. If anyone is guilty of vandalism it is you. Blockader 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is already there. No doubt you can find it. Intangible 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sound familiar Intangible? -- WGee 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Palahnuik

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Chuck Palahnuik in the Anarchism in Culture section.NinzEliza 02:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism

I just logged into discussion to moot removing the so called "Anarcho-Capitalism" section, as despite its deceptive name, anarcho-capitalism is objectively not a form of anarchism, but uh.. seems there are some confused souls here claiming it is. What the hell guys, this isnt rocket science. Anarchists are opposed to heirachical power, therefore you cant advocate anarchism and capitalism without contradiction. Can this silly section be replaced with something thats not going to decieve people trying to research the topic? People send students here, and if you get students gibbering on about ayn rand being an anarchist after reading this section or some such absurditys then frankly your just causing people grief. Duckmonster 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How did you come to conclusion that Ayn Rand is an anarchist? Neither she or the anarcho-capitalists claim that she is. -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ayn Rand is referred to as an anarchist by "scholars" very regularly. So it is a common mistake to make. These scholars usually also include "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism as well, so there you go. What is ironic is that many "anarcho"-capitalists call Auberon Herbert an "anarchist" in spite of having identical politics to Rand and having identical arguments against anarchism. BlackFlag, 09:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "many anarcho-capitalists" who call Auberon Herbert an anarchist?Anarcho-capitalism 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a taste from the Auberon Herbert entry on Wikipedia. It shows how far it is from anarchism. BlackFlag, 16:11 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and I only see one anarcho-capitalist, Hoppe, that says Hebert was an anarchist. Rothbard says he was not.Anarcho-capitalism 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rand herself vehemently denounced all anarchists, capitalist or not... and libertarians as well, even though she is usually categorized as being in the "libertarian camp". So, if you label her as either an "anarchist" or a "libertarian", under some definition of these terms, you are actually going against her own self-description. (Though, her Galt's Gulch seems quite anarcho-capitalist.) *Dan T.* 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That has not stopped "anarcho"-capitalists claiming Auberon Herbert as one, nor "scholars" saying Rand is one. And Galt's Gulch is a monarchy, it is run by the property owner. So, yes, it is "quite" "anarcho"-capitalist and so not remotely anarchist. BlackFlag, 16:11 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're an "anarcho"-communist. I disagree that "anarcho"-communism is a form of anarchism. It has little or nothing to do with the true anarchist tradition of individualism.Anarcho-capitalism 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Any teacher than sends their students to Wikipedia for information needs to get a clue. It cannot be depended on.Anarcho-capitalism 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I found a book by Albert Weisbord, The Conquest of Power, published in 1937 in which he refers to liberal anarchism of Tucker as a "Bourgeois individualistic Anarchism"[1]. -- Vision Thing -- 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you find out about something thats not been found out ...

... Without it being original research? Isnt this impossible. Ive read through this talk page and its not unique in being full of claims about facts, facts not available to anybody, be it anarchists or scholars being represented by their works in the article or any of us here. We might everyone of us have our own feeling towards how many ancaps there are, but those feelings just arent enough to make a difference here on wikipedia. They are a product of each and everyones own experiences with people or peoples books, and everybody might claim they are representative for the anarchist community. This just isnt going to work! I know wikipedia has a policy on this topic but that must be in some way based on non-original research to be able to live up to the other demands of this encyclopedia. I honestly dont think one rule should be seen without all the others! My advise to the lot of you in here, and you know who it is who's using facts about the many or the few, the marginal or the mainstream, thats really original research in here or written by someone not as a fact but a feeling, stop this as soon as it starts instead of rambling on about your or other peoples feelings! This is an embarrasment! --Fjulle 13:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it is embarassing to the site that people will remove properly cited quotations because they're "wrong" and then demand proper citations! Peter Marshall is a perfect secondary source, the writer of a well respected book on the history of anarchism. If you look at other related articles, such as Mutualism (economic theory), you'll see some of the same faces using dictionary definitions to critique sources' terminology. That "anarcho"-capitalism is a marginal theory with no real connection with any anarchist tradition due to its rejection of any form of socialism and its preference for capitalism is not an opinion, it's a fact that has been backed up time and time again. Yet the POV-pushing "anarcho"-capitalists keep removing all those cites. Donnacha 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But what you say is in opposition to my point. Its not a fact, by quoting Peter Marshall, that anarcho-capitalism is a marginal theory, the fact here is thats excactly and precisely Peter Marshalls position on this matter. Your post theres right about where the problem i see lies. No matter how many quotes one side or the other comes up with about wether or not there are many or few anarcho-caps out there doesnt change that none of it is factual, its guessing as nobody has ever made a count on which anarchists are what, and who would honestly want to perticipate in one such search? As i said, the needed views on definitions are a minimal, talk about facts here is irelevant! Its disruptive! And people who say they have the facts about this ready better get them published soon cauz i havnt seen em! --Fjulle 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how writing encyclopedia articles works: 1. Find experts. 2. Work on the definition. 3. Find authorative sources that back up your definition. I am an expert, as are many other contributors here. That's point 1 covered. When discussing "anarcho"-capitalism, all experts are aware that it is a marginal theory that rejects fundamental elements of anarchism, which, in all cases, has been a socialist concept. That's point 2 covered. Now, finding authorative sources - what about a book on the history of anarchism? Good place to start, look, there's Peter Marshall's book. Oh, look, what he's written about the views of anarchists (not his own view, mind) meets the definition above. Let's quote it and cite it. Hmmm, maybe that's not enough. Let's add a few citations that prove he is not the only person to say this. Done (see the footnote to the Peter Marshall quote). All done and correct.

Here's how writing encyclopedia articles shouldn't work: 1. Develop a point of view. 2. Find places where you can push your POV by redefining everything that opposes your POV so that it is either no longer in opposition or is simply rejected as being irrelevant. (eg. Mutualists didn't mean socialism when they said it and anarchist-communists weren't anarchists). Donnacha 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you forgot one more: 4. Find authorative sources that doesnt back up or otherwise go against your definitions, this makes sure theres development, that whoever writes something tries to defend his position against those who does not agree instead of ignoring them, and not a standstill on some specific point of view. All this seems to me to mean that: 5. Youre not really and expert, youve developed your own point of view, and you 6. Find places where you can push your POW! --Fjulle 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really nice to see how well you get on with a user who acknowledged on his first appearance that he was here to push a POV, a user who rarely, if ever, edits articles not related to his chosen POV, a user who has driven numerous productive editors off this page. The difference between POV and NPOV is not the lack of a personal point of view. It's the ability to see the validity of ideas with which you disagree. While my personal viewpoint is anarcho-communist/syndicalist, I recognise the valid basis of individualist and mutualist positions even if I disagree with their conclusions. I also recognise the valid basis of a range of socialist, communist and even social conservative viewpoints, even if I disagree with their conclusions. There are only two constant themes in all forms anarchism - social justice and economic egalitarianism and the recognition of the position of the state in perpetuating social injustice and economic inegalitarianism. "Anarcho"-capitalists get it arse about tit, mistaking the opposition to the state as the primary rather than secondary element of anarchist theory. A statment like "Extreme wealth inequalities are the natural result of liberty" is sickening and fundamentally incorrect, it's generally impossible for anyone to be extremely wealthy in comparison with other people without extreme exploitation - in other words, denying others their liberty. As for being "not really and expert", you have a very strange view of experts if you think they don't have points of view. Every human has a point of view. Donnacha 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are talking about me, but you're wrong. I have not "driven" anyone away from editing this article. I edit this article relatively little. Anyone is free to edit this article that wishes. If you feel you have been "driven away" it's all in your head. And, no I never said that I was here to "push a POV." Get your facts straight. I do not push POV in Wikipedia articles.Anarcho-capitalism 20:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt want no namedropping from the start, and still not. The way i started this wasnt for or against one particular person or group, not at all, it was a point concerning the way most of the debates in here are being had. Maybe i might have put it a little more diplomatic, but i still think its valid. Besides i agree with you on anarchism being both freedom from the state, social injustice and freedom from economic inequalites in the form that its always been, but theres arguments that will persuade more effectively than using spin (or weasel words), at least here in wikipedia! On top of that i havnt expressed my view towards whether experts have a point of view or not, but whether you can be an expert if you doesnt take a oppositions view as wholy as possibly in account or not. That was mostly a critique of your 3 conditions, adding one extra and then the last. --Fjulle 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that "all experts are aware that it is a marginal theory that rejects fundamental elements of anarchism" is untrue. That is obvious from the sources in this article. Very very few "experts" say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and they are "anarcho"-communists.Anarcho-capitalism 18:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But you got a point when people want to remove a quote from someone who uses the many word. As far as wikipedia is concerned its vallid reference because opinions are relevant, but then if theres someone of different opinion then they should be mentioned as well. It doesnt make it fact though, in the contrary. --Fjulle 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for a little thing called official Wikipedia policy - Undue Weight. Donnacha 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But its also wikipedia policy that when it comes down to oppinions, they should all be represented if possibly, and Marshals quote is not a fact because of wikipedia policy on the use of weasel words, that means if his oppinion shuld be there, others on the same topic should as well! --Fjulle 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you don't seem to know what's in the policy, let me quote it for you: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Viewpoints are the same things as opinions. Marshall's view that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism is shared by all "social" anarchists, who make up the majority of anarchists worldwide. It's the majority view, easily verifiable (try looking at the list of sources backing up the Marshall quote in the notes, which you also appear not to have done). Despite being asked numerous times, not one of the "anarcho"-capitalists can point to any real examples of "anarcho"-capitalism in the real world, outside universities and web-warriors. Donnacha 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is not in fact the case (as is sometimes thought) that anarcho-capitalism came out of the blue, without past or pedigree. It has a good deal in common with the earlier American tradition of individualist anarchism." (Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press, 2002, p. 132) ""[C]ontemporary anarcho-capitalists are descendants of nineteenth-century individualist anarchists such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker." (Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 103)Anarcho-capitalism 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny how the current individualist anarchists disagree with that evaluation. They point out that there are distict differences. And I have to point out that "anarcho-capitalism" forgot to quotes this from Brown:

"These early anarchists, though staunchly individualistic, did not entertain a penchant for . . . capitalism. Rather, they saw themselves as socialists opposed to the state socialism of Karl Marx. The individualist anarchists saw no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."

And what about this:

"These early anarchists took from Adam Smith the labour theory of value, which to them meant that workers created value through their labour, a value appropriated by owners of businesses, who paid their wages. The individualist anarchists blamed capitalism for creating inhumane working conditions and for increasing inequalities of wealth. Their self-avowed 'socialism' was rotted in their firm belief in equality, material as well as legal."

I wonder why "anarcho-capitalist" forgot to mention these quotes? BlackFlag 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And not to forget this classic: "As can be seen with Tucker, the individualist anarchists, even relatively late in the day, were still fervent anti-capitalists." BlackFlag 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "forget" anything. I'm not going to quote the whole article. It's well-known that the nineteenth century individualists had a labor theory of value and corresponding Marxist-like exploitation theory and therefore were anti-capitalists. How is that relevant to anything? Anarcho-capitalists ditched the ridiculous economic theories but retained their support for private property in the product of labor, markets, and private police. That's why they're decendants of the 19th century individualists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Marxist-like" is just name calling. If you believe that the market in labor can be deranged by any cause whatsoever (state intervention, monopoly holdings, etc, etc) then you're going to have a theory of "exploitation." If you deny the possibility of exploitation than it's hard to imagine on what grounds you call yourself an opponent of the status quo, let alone an anarchist. Libertatia 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider "Marxist-like" to be name calling. It is in fact similar to Marxist exploitation theory. I think that's a good way to describe it. I don't disagree that people can be exploited, but it has nothing to do with any intrinsic value of labor. Labor has no intrinsic value, and any value that it does have is subjective. It is not unethical for me to pay a person a very low wage if his labor is of very low value to me. The greater the supply of the same kind of labor, the lower the value to me. If someone wants a higher wage it is his responsibility to perform a more useful labor that is in higher demand.Anarcho-capitalism 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're criticizing a position nobody is advancing. The concept of exploitation is not dependent on a labor theory of value, and is certainly compatible with labor theories that assume the price of labor will be worked out in the market (which is, I think, actually the majority of them). Several theories you are lumping as The LTV were actually theories of labor-price, having much less to do with anything like an "intrinsic value of labor" than they did with a criticism of notions of the "productiveness of capital." That criticism can lead, and did lead most of the early market anarchists to a free-market theory where wage price would be left to the "higgling of the market." As I've pointed out before, very few anarchists subscribed to the time-dollar concept for very long, and most of those still left the time-valuation issue partially in the hands of the market. Compare even Warren's earliest labor note schemes to something like the calculation of hours of labor in Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward and you can see how far from the centralized, mechanical system you seem to be critiquing the early anarchist schemes were. (Actually, you'll see some weird market mechanisms used even in Bellamy.)

Obviously they would leave it to the market. But they thought that state intervention causes exploitation or "usury." They thought that the lack of perfect competition caused labor not to receive its "full produce." But that's wrong. Labor always receives its full produce. Its "full produce" is simply that wage that is received based on subjective determination of marginal utility.Anarcho-capitalism 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your theory allows no opposition to anything, including state intervention in the market. It is simply apologetics. Anarchism is necessarily something other than that. Libertatia 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. My opposition to state intervention is that restricts individual freedom. People should be free to own the product of their labor and dispose of it however they see fit, sell it for any price they wish, or keep it to themselves. And, the freedom to sell and buy labor itself. It's as simple as that. Where exploitation comes in is when people are taxed or "anarcho"-communists expropriate. That is when the product of labor is stolen.Anarcho-capitalism 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The one goes with the other. If the state has the power to limit individual freedom, then it can prevent the operation of a free market, and exploitation is possible. If labor's "full product" is what it can get, under any circumstances, then that "full product" is somehow divorced from individual freedom. As you are unwilling to acknowledge economic coercion, then the real font of invasive force must be the state. Yet you say that labor always recieves it "full product," even, apparently, under the state. No niceties here about avoiding "force and fraud," just the "what appears is good; what is good appears" that Debord identifies as the "philosophy" of actually-existing capitalism. Did labor "always recieve its full product" under slavery? If, as you claim elsewhere, systems such as "capitalism" are properly ideals, the stuff of dictionaries, wouldn't it more likely be the case that exchange is always deranged, in the absence of a free market? Libertatia 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The nineteenth century individualists believed in a labor theory of value, which led them to believe that equal amounts of labor would receive equal wages in a free market in the long run. It's wrong. Just because that is not happening, it doesn't mean that labor is being exploited. And there is no reason to think that I would or should happen. Equal amounts of labor SHOULD receive different wages, because wages should be left to individual decision and no two people value anything exactly the same. The state is not causing wages not to be proportional to labor. Wages will not be proportional to labor in a market, whether completely free or not. It's simply an absurd archaic notion.Anarcho-capitalism 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The 19th century individualists did not, in fact, believe in the sort of LTV you attribute to them. Very little of the subjective theory you introduce is foreign to the theories you are opposing. Howver, if you believe that state conditions and non-state conditions produce no significant differences in the kinds of wage inequalities that exist under them, it is, once again, hard to see how you draw the distinction so firmly in the realm of individual liberty. Your standards for "freedom" in the "free market" seem uncertain and almost certainly inadequate to the libertarian tradition. In fact, your attitude seems very much like that "unconcern about social justice" that Marshall talks about. Libertatia 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking is just as corrupted as Carson's, by the labor theory of value. There is nothing at all wrong with "wage inequalities." People value different kinds of labor different ways. There is no reason to think that wages should become more equal if the state disappears. It's just as likely that wealth distribution would be more disparate. And, it doesn't make one difference one way or the other. Anarcho-capitalists are not concerned with wealth inequality. As long as people have the right to own the product of their labor and trade it at mutually agreed to prices, and the state doesn't take a cut from our paychecks, everything is fine. If you want to say I'm not an anarchist because I don't care whether wealth is equal or not, or less unequal, that's up to you. But, there is no requirement to be a wealth egalitarian to be anarchist. There is no reason to think that the disappearance of the state would cause wealth to be more equalized. What does it matter? It's not as if a set amount of wealth is just shuffled around from one person to another. Just because one person has more wealth than another, it doesn't mean he is taking wealth away from someone else. New wealth is always being created and traded. If I create something useful and sell it, the rest of the world is wealthier as a result. The wealth each purchaser of that product receives may be small depending on how useful the product is. But if enough people buy that product I can become extremely wealthy. Extreme wealth inequalities are the natural result of liberty - of the right to own the product of labor and trade. It's not something to condemn or bemoan. The freedom to become wealthy is something to celebrate.Anarcho-capitalism 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. After 7 or 8 edits, you're still "responding" to points I did not make. I'm not concerned with equal wealth, except to the extent that real extremes in inequality stand in the way of genuinely voluntary and equitable social and economic relations. I think the cost-price convergence hypothesis is interesting speculation, as is the free-banking nominal interest hypothesis. (As true mutual banking involves no loan, obviously there is no place for interest.) I have never advanced anything like a zero sum scheme of wealth creation, but no such scheme is necessary to indict the state, and holders of concentrations of capital, in fostering inequity, the thing to which all anarchists, including an-caps, claim to be opposed. These are your obsessions, not mine, and, for the most part, not those of any of the anarchists you are attributing them to. Libertatia 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The labor theory of value is false. As long as people are free to own and trade the product of their labor, without having it expropriated by the state or "anarcho"-communists, people are recieving their "full produce.". Extremes in wealth equality do not stand in the way of "genuinely voluntary and equitable social and economic relations." There cannot be voluntary relations without extreme wealth inequality, because different people produce different amounts of value for society. The contribution of some individuals is enormous and naturally their wealth is going to be extremely disproporionate to that of the masses. Just because I'm a millionaire and you're a pauper it doesn't mean I am coercing you if I pay you a low price for your labor. I pay you a low price for your labor because that's what it's worth to me.Anarcho-capitalism 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, your "anarchism" consists of an opposition to people or the state "taking your stuff." Isn't it obvious that that's a terribly degraded version of anarchism? Libertatia 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to myself that the labor theory of value is correct in order to justify my opposition to the state. I don't need any theory of value whatsover to justify my opposition to the state.Anarcho-capitalism 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to believe in an LTV. It would be nice if your opposition didn't blind you to the facts on the pages you are editing, or to the points of agreement between genuine market anarchisms. It's weird. For some an-caps, Kevin Carson's book has been correctly perceived as an opening to dialog. And that discussion has gone far beyond the silly circles we run in here. Sad, really. Libertatia 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that one need not have a theory of value in order to be anarchist. Trying to justify anarchism on theories of value is worthless. It's a waste of time and effort. If you believe that people should have a right to truly own the product of their labor, then that's sufficient to be a market anarchist. Carson's book is mostly worthless except as an illustration of what monstrosities one can come up with one's premises are wrong. And, yes it is great for that dialogue.Anarcho-capitalism 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One more time, I'm not insisting on any theory of value as a prerequisite for anarchism. Some market anarchists have simply side-stepped the issue. I might, on the other hand, insist on acknowledgment of some form of exploitation. If you really believe that "labor always gets its full product" then you have given away a tremendous amount of ground, and I suspect the ground an anarchist would need to stand on is a part of the territory surrendered. The way that you argue "against" Carson makes it clear that you haven't understood even the beginnings of his argument. Even Block, for all his foaming at the mouth and name-calling, acknowledges that there is some very good work there. Breaking down the myth of a single, monolithic LTV is some of the best of it. Libertatia 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When I say that labor always gets its full product I am saying that it always gets its full product from the purchaser. Of course, the state steal some of the product when it taxes one's paycheck.Anarcho-capitalism 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of sanders

Why is this removed, this is an important notion Sanders makes about terminological issues around the word "capitalism." Intangible 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think the removal is justified.Anarcho-capitalism 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't think the Sanders stuff was very clear. Libertatia 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How many is enough to be many?

Ive changed this paragraph: "Many claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[7] though this is a controversial topic.[8] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[7]" to: "Some claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[7] though this is a controversial topic.[8] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[7]" And why? Because first of all i think its about time we got a better look at all those many'ses and some'ses around this article! This problem always seems to pop up around the neverending anarcho-capitalism discussion, so we might as well get some practice elsewhere. Second i dont think one single reference is enough to back up the many-word. After all just how many is many enough to be many? Is it over half the people who has ever written about it, or is it enough that its only a third. Anyways then we might as well use the majority and minority concepts instead of many or some! When it all comes down to it if such investigations had been made somebody might probably be able to pull it out of a hat right? I hope that youll go for the word some as its always some even if its only one or its many! --Fjulle 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there is only a few sources for something, then it should say "some." To say "many" then there needs to be many sources.Anarcho-capitalism 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And id say many isnt enough, because we can only say theres many if we know of every possible source, but this is ofcourse something that might be irellevant if there just isnt anymore sources or the sources there might be left is very few. But just how do we know when theres few possible sources left or any it all thats not been used? I dont know what wikipedia councils in this case though. --Fjulle 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there this paragraph: "Anarchism in the modern sense, however, has its roots in the secular political thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[9] The word "anarchist" was originally used as a term of abuse, but by the French Revolution some groups such as the Enragés had started to use the term in a positive sense,[10] seeing the Jacobin concept of a "revolutionary government" as an oxymoron. It was in this political climate that William Godwin would develop his philosophy, which is considered by many to be the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[11]" Who are those many people? It would be more conclusive to write that some considers him the first or just that he is considered (which doesnt say anything about how many there are). --Fjulle 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're talking about is what I think they call "weasel words" on Wikipedia..."some" and "many." There is a policy or guideline against that. What you're saying it correct.Anarcho-capitalism 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) ... ive just counted the word many 17 times in this article as of this moment. This reminds me of Fox news! This cannot put the article in a respectable light, when theres this many (you see: 17) claims that is well as impossible to verify! --Fjulle 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)