Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Yeah, that's what Wikipedia really needs... another anarchism-related page for the socialists and capitalists to edit-war over! *Dan* 17:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Valid point, but in the end, this was clogging the anarcho-capitalism article. This distinction seems to be made so often, in so many places, that it needs one place where a sane editor can delete the debris of an edit-war and replace it with "(see: Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism)" 66.94.94.154 17:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • It needs such a rewrite it may as well get deleted. starting with the title and then.. Each paragraph (5) - starts with anarcho-capitalism except 4 which has 'other anarchists' just before. Tis created by and is the jot-pad of anarcho-caps who can't get their un-encyclopedic POV ramblings into other articles. -max rspct 23:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

On 20 May 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. Despite a clear majority arguing for deletion, the necessary concensus for deletion was not reached and the decision defaulted to "keep" for now. If this article is not substantially improved in a reasonable period of time, it may be appropriate to re-nominate it for deletion.

I will further note that the concensus was against the separation of this content as a separate article. I understand that it was broken out from another article for length reasons. The participants in this discussion found that argument unpersuasive. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism for a record of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying categorically that I'm against incorporating any text from this page in anarcho-capitalism, but I will oppose any attempts to add material to the detriment of that article. One thing a Vote for Deletion is not is a vote on what to put in a different article. - Nat Krause 09:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am against shoe-horning this back into anarcho-capitalism, if it is merged anywhere, it probably should be injected into Anarchism and capitalism. Saswann 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky quote

The following was deleted from the anarcho-capitalist section of the Anarchism article:

In Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, the ardently anti-capitalist Chomsky writes, "Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history", although he adds that he finds himself, "in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues". ^[1] Simon Tormey, in his book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide places no anti-capitalist restriction on being an anarchist: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."

Tucker

I put a disputed tag on the sentence saying Tucker opposed division between laborer and employer. I demand a source for that. You can't make that kind of a statement without explaining that was he actually opposes is employers not working. RJII 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

| On Talk:Anarchism you keep saying Tucker supports employers. Am I missing something?? The direct quote is "wiped out". -- infinity0 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take "wiped out" out of context. He says he wants the distinction between "wage-receiver" and "wage-payer" to be wiped out. In other words, an employer is purchasing the employee's labor just as much as the employee is purchasing the employer's labor. The wages of the employee are coming from the labor of the employer. RJII 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:Anarchism, I explained why wage-payer == employer. You then replied with something completely irrelevant about "whole labour products". I have been waiting ever since for you to come up with a reason why wage-payer is not the same thing as employer. -- infinity0 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course an employer pays wages. What's your point? Tucker wants the employer to continue paying wages, but the money for those wages should come from the employer's labor. RJII 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-employers aren't called employers. Similarly, "people who hire other people to help them but they also do part of the work themselves" are not called employers. -- infinity0 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! To be an employer doesn't mean you necessarily don't work. To be an employer means you own a means of production and you're letting someone else use that means of production and pay him for it. What Tucker wants is for the employee's wages to come from the labor of the employer. He wants the employer to have to work. I don't know WHERE you're getting that idea a person who owns a business works, then he's not an employer. RJII 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not letting him use it. You're ordering him to use it. I get your point though, but since Tucker says the hirers work and get their income from it, I don't think you should use the word "employers". He "supported private MOP" makes this point much clearer. Still, what's your problem? My version said "but was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether." You took that out for some reason, I would have thought you wanted to keep it in to clarify things. -- infinity0 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not "ordering him to use it." LOL! He's free to borrow cash to purchase his own means of production --and at extremely low interest in an anarchist society. You dont think I should use the word "employers"? What? I have no idea what the rest of your paragraph says. RJII 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because Tucker doesn't support employers in the common sense of the word, as they exist today. -- infinity0 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. And, you have no source to back that up. So, don't make the claim in the article that opposes employers. RJII 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. -- infinity0 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It says: "Similarly, individualist anarchists also opposed this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers." First of all, "similarly" is very POV of you. Individualist anarchists are not similar to the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ. Second, Tucker never says he opposes "a split between the separate classes of labourers and employers." He opposes the idea of some people not working for a living. He wants everyone to have to work to survive. RJII 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, it's not implying that they are similar to the anarchist FAQ writers. It's implying that the opposition to class distinction is similar. How does it imply the former? It directly follows the point that employers and employees are separated. -- infinity0 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And, it says he "was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether." This is extremely misleading. This gives the impression that he had something against employer-employee relationships. He didn't, at all. RJII 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, removed this bit, since that's disputed. -- infinity0 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV the article

I put an NPOV tag on the article because the whole article comes across as an attack on anarcho-capitalism. The article is not called "Criticism of anarcho-capitalism" but "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." The very first sentence of the article says "Many anarchists strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism." RJII 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pfft... You were the main contributor to the article... Do you have any specific complaints? The first sentence is true, and most of this article is just detailing the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Only thing they have in common is no government, but not much else in the way of similarities. -- infinity0 19:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Spooner and partnerships

I put a disputed tag on the sentence where it is claimed that Spooner supports "cooperatives." He uses the term "partnerships." A "cooperative" in anarchism typically implies a collectivist situation. There was nothing collectivist about Spooner. RJII 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Co-operatives exist in today's capitalism too. -- infinity0 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A partnership is joint investment. Co-operatives is joint labour. Spooner wants the latter. -- infinity0 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you allow use of Spooner's term? A direct quote prevents a dispute. It's the most NPOV thing to do. If you think Spooner didnt support join investment, you're wrong. RJII 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Joint investment is exactly what he's talking about: "The amount of money, capable of being furnished by this system, is so great that every man, woman, and child, who is worthy of credit, could get it, and do business for himself, or herself --- either singly, or in partnerships." RJII 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you're linking it to the article on partnerships, which is NOT what Spooner means. In that context he is talking about workers - co-operatives. In a partnership, the people don't necessarily do work. In a cooperative they do. -- infinity0 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So the link is the problem for you. Then use his term "partnership" and link it to "cooperative." I've yet to see a dual proprietorship where the proprietors don't work. RJII 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But then that's confusing for readers. What's wrong with using co-operative anyway? -- infinity0 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, how does "co-operative" imply collectivism? Co-operative is what it's called in normal language. -- infinity0 16:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII reinserting redundant info

RJII, why do you keep adding "written by communists, anti-individualists" every time the FAQ is cited? Why don't you keep adding "a right-wing extremist" every time anarcho-capitalist authors are cited as well? -- infinity0 17:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep deleting "social anarchism"? It's not a neologism, it has 28k google hits. "Anarcho-individualism" had about 400 hits yet you kept trying to insert that in. -- infinity0 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just noting that the authors of the FAQ are "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" in their own words. This bias needs to be known. These people "reject individualist anarchism." It's not a credible source in the first place, so it needs to be treated like a primary source --for it to be made clear that it's THEIR opinion and what their STATED BIAS is "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." They at least were honest enough to admit they had a bias. Why won't you allow the article to make their bias known? By the way, congratulations on your vote to become an administrator. RJII 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you add the labels to all other sources, such as Murray Rothbard or Ralph Raico? -- infinity0 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, RJII. Infinity0 is correct -- most of your sources are very much biased, as well, and are only primary sources. The difference is that the author of your sources have higher stakes, because they're trying to make a little-known philosophy relevant. --AaronS 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would Rothbard need to be labeled an anarcho-capitalist? Everybody knows he is. If you want to label these guys' philosophy, go ahead. I couldn't care less. It's pointless though. Everybody knows Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist and Raico is a professional historian. RJII 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, why are you deleting the fact that the writers of "Anarchist FAQ" "reject individualist anarchism"? Here's a source" Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? RJII 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The writers don't say they reject individualist anarchism, which is what you said they said (quote was misleading). Say they are social anarchists, and that they think social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism. -- infinity0 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put in the notes, though, otherwise it's bloating up the article. Informations on sources are normally put in the notes, anyway. -- infinity0 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, why did you make this edit? It sounds almost spiteful. The whole point of the article is to examine the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. The FAQ and ind-anarchists agree on THAT RESPECT ONLY. The article doesn't link them two any other way. -- infinity0 18:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiteful? Hardly. You are making it look like individualist anarchists arguments are "similar" to anarcho-communist ones. They're not. They're an entirely different mindset. You're really distorting things in this article. RJII 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not an entirely different mindset. The sentence says what it says - individualist anarchists oppose the split, and anarcho-capitalists do not. It even gives a source. Why do you think it links ind-anarchism to anarcho-communism? -- infinity0 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By using the word "similarly." RJII 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word similarly. It now says "also" which has less tone. That OK? The article needs SOME flow. -- infinity0 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No. You're retaining the same meaning by using a different word. RJII 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike a-capitalists, social anarchists oppose the class distinction. Next paragraph. Ind-anarchists also oppose the class distinction, but they don't oppose private MOP."

What's POV about that??? -- infinity0 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make [2] when you know full well that that is POV? -- infinity0 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's easily sourceable. And you can't find any sources saying that it's not a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Easily sourceable doesn't mean it's not POV. There is a source you refuse to acknowledge. -- infinity0 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a source. It's being represented as a source by you. But, it's a misrepresentation. RJII 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied to this point on the a-capitalism talk page. Other points:

"Unlike a-capitalists, social anarchists oppose the class distinction. Next paragraph. Ind-anarchists also oppose the class distinction, but they don't oppose private MOP."

What's POV about that??? -- infinity0 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, RJII, it says in the NOTES that the FAQ writers are social anarchists. This is what is normally done. Information about a source is included in the source along with the notes. -- infinity0 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be said in THE TEXT. First of all, it's a not a credible source. We've already established that. We can use it a primary source, for what the writer of the Anarchist FAQ believe. So, it needs to be stated what their POV is. It's needs to be made clear that their views don't necessarily represent anarchists in general. RJII 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the custom to put source info in the notes where the source actually is. It also needs to be make clear that anarcho-capitalist views don't necessarily represent anarchists in general - why don't you add labels to them in the text too? -- infinity0 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "custom"? Yeah right. Who am I not labeling as anarcho-capitalists that are anarcho-capitalists? RJII 19:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not putting in the text that they are anarcho-capitalists, eg Murray Rothbard, Hoppe, Ralph Raico, etc. I'm serious, it's the custom to put source info in the notes along with the sources. Hence why it's already in the ntoes. -- infinity0 19:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not the "custom." So, you want it noted that Rothbard and Hoppe are anarcho-capitalists? LOL. Where have I not noted this? And Raico, as far as I know, is not an anarcho-capitalist. If you can't find himself or a source saying that he is, put it in. Why should anything be hidden? RJII 19:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is. In all essays you add the source information in the notes, so it doesn't break up the point of what you're trying to say. -- infinity0 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It NEEDS to break up the point of what you're trying to say. The reader needs to know the POV of this FAQ. They're honest and say "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." They thought it was important to make their POV known at the outset. But, you're hiding it. RJII 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiding what? It's clear in the notes, and it's also clear in the actual FAQ. -- infinity0 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be in the text. Also, it needs to be noted how they define "social anarchism": "(communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)." RJII 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be in the text? You need to treat all sources the same. If you put "An Anarchist FAQ is written by social anarchists" in every case it occurs, then you need to do the same for all the anarcho-capitalist and right-wing extremist authors. -- infinity0 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. If you feel it's important to state that Murray Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist, you're free to do so. RJII 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel it's important to add anything. But if you decide to add "social anarchists" to the main text, you must add the others too. Otherwise, it's POV. -- infinity0 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? It is noted: "...most noted anarcho-capitalist, Murray Rothbard" RJII 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The others ARE noted. You're the one that's singling out the Anarchist FAQ by deleting any mention of their POV in the text. RJII 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Split

Ind-anarchists are opposed to class distinction. Tucker quotes and Spooner quotes. -- infinity0 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In what sense? RJII 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The split between employers and employees, meaning that one class lives purely off employing others and one class lives purely off being employed. -- infinity0 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a "split between employers and employees." There is no necessity that an employer does not make his income through labor. RJII 20:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In a "split between employers and employees," that is the case. Hence why it is called a split. -- infinity0 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)