Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

International of Anarchist Federations

2013-09-09T19:41:10Z

Eamr: /* External links */

The '''International of Anarchist Federations''' (IAF or IFA) was founded during an international [[anarchist]] conference in [[Carrara]] in 1968 by the three existing European federations of [[France]], [[Italy]] and [[Spain]] as well as the [[Bulgaria]]n federation in French exile. To counter the internationalisation of state and [[capitalism|capitalist]] powers that are developing their influences ever rapidly on a global scale, the IFA has since aimed to build and improve strong and active international anarchist structures.

The federations associated with IFA believe that such an organisation is necessary to co-ordinate their international work and efficiently co-operate towards their mutual aims.

To further improve the quality of exchange and co-operation, IFA also keeps close contact with other anarchist organisations, such as the IWA ([[International Workers Association]], an international association of [[anarcho-syndicalist]] organisations).

The principles of work within IFA are that of [[federalism]], free arrangement and [[mutual aid]]. To improve co-ordination and communication within IFA, as well as to provide an open contact address for the public and other anarchist groups and organisations, an International Secretariat (C.R.I.F.A. - Commission of Relations of the International of Anarchist Federations) was set up. CRIFA irregularly rotates among the IFA federations. It is currently based with the Anarchist Federation in the UK. The [[Federazione Anarchica Italiana]] (FAI) publishes an anarchist newspaper called "[[UmanitÃ Nova]]". Most other federations also produce regular publications such as the "Le Monde Libertaire" in France, "Tierra y Libertad" in Spain, "Organise!" and "Resistance" in the UK and "A-kontra" in Czech.

==Member Organisations==
*'''Argentina''' - [[Federacion Libertaria Argentina]] [http://www.libertario.org.ar/]
*'''Belarus''' - [[Belarusian Federation of Anarchists]] (FAB) [http://anarchistory.boom.ru/]
*'''Britain''' - [[Anarchist Federation (UK)]] [http://www.iaf-ifa.org/member%20federations/britain.htm]
*'''Czech Republic''' and '''Slovakia''' - [[ÄŒeskoslovenskÃ¡ AnarchistickÃ¡ FederÃ¡cia]] [http://www.csaf.cz/]
*'''France''' - [[La FÃ©dÃ©ration anarchiste]] [http://www.federation-anarchiste.org/]
*'''Germany, Austria, German speaking Switzerland''' - Forum deutschsprachiger AnarchistInnen [http://fda-ifa.org/]
*'''Italy''' - [[Federazione Anarchica Italiana]] [http://www.iaf-ifa.org/member%20federations/italy.html]
*'''Spain''' - [[FederaciÃ³n Anarquista IbÃ©rica]] (FAI) [http://www.iaf-ifa.org/member%20federations/spain.html]
*'''Russia''' - [[ÐÐ¡Ð¡ÐžÐ¦Ð˜ÐÐ¦Ð˜Ð¯ Ð”Ð’Ð˜Ð–Ð•ÐÐ˜Ð™ ÐÐÐÐ Ð¥Ð˜Ð¡Ð¢ÐžÐ’]] [http://vintovka.ruserv.com/]

There are currently organisations in Venezuala,<ref>[http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm El Libertario]</ref> and Trinidad and Tobago<ref>[http://nlfedtt.bravehost.com/ National Liberation Federation]</ref> and an organisation of Cuban-exiles who are in the process of applying for membership of the IAF-IFA. The IFA is also in discussion with the Bulgarian Anarchist Federation and a number of other groups in Eastern Europe.

==Other anarchist internationals==
* [[Anarchist St. Imier International]] ([[1872]] - [[1877]])
* [[International Workers Association]] ([[1922]] - )
* [[Black Bridge International]] ([[2001]] - )

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://i-f-a.org Official website of IAF/IFA]

{{wikipedia}}

[[Category:Internationalism]]
[[Category:Anarchist organizations]]

[[de:IFA]]
[[eo:Internacio de Anarkiistaj Federacioj]]
[[es:Internacional de Federaciones Anarquistas]]
[[pl:I.F.A. MiÄ™dzynarodÃ³wka Federacji Anarchistycznych]]
[[it:Internazionale delle Federazioni Anarchiche]]

ideology

2010-09-21T23:23:03Z

Eamr: Reverted edits by 121.10.120.214 (Talk) to last version by Complacency is insanity

'''Ideology''' is the set of beliefs that claim to be universal for everybody.

{{stub}}

[[de:Ideologie]]

Anarcho-Capitalism

2009-06-28T18:37:28Z

Eamr: Protected "Anarcho-Capitalism": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

{{Voice of Freedom|238000|Ownership of Self}}

'''Anarcho-capitalism''' is a [[social darwinism|social darwinistic]] ideology, which originated in the 1960s in the USA. It is significant influenced by the Austrian school. Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and theory, non-anarchist, which want to privatize States for the benefit of capitalist companies in competing. They defend actual economical and social [[hierarchy]]. Anarcho-capitalists state that anarcho-capitalism is a school in anarchism... They attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom. Anarchist basically oppose anarcho-capitalism, since capitalism is a kind of authority and it requires a social darwinistic practice. In anarcho-capitalism the refusion of authority only includes mechanisms, which get in the way of market liberalism. Anarchists further argue that the word "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, a false theory, because anarchism and capitalism are not compatible with each other, and that anti-statism and individual freedom aren't sufficient to be enounced like "anarchist".

Anarcho-capitalist views are not in accordance with the basic political consensus of Anarchopedia.

==Theory==

Anarcho-capitalism aims to be a liberal version of capitalism, where the state in its current form would no longer exist, and where regalian doctrine of it would be given to private organisations (private tribunals, private police, private army...).

Anarcho-Capitalism embraces the capitalist [[free market]], which contrasts with traditional anarchism as anarchist philosophy has historically been opposed to capitalism. It should be noted that anarcho-capitalists define the words "[[capitalism]]" and [[free market]] differently from Anarchists, favouring the capitalists Austrian economic definition of the words. This difference in terminology is often the basis for controversy.

It emerged in the [[1950s]] out of the disputed tradition of [[classical liberalism]], and generally sets itself in contrast to individualist anarchists theory. [[Murray Rothbard]], an [[Austrian economist]] influenced by work of individualist anarchists like [[Benjamin Tucker]] and [[Lysander Spooner]], rejecting from them the critics of wage labour, is thought as the founder of [[anarcho-capitalism]].

=== Varying Views on Intellectual Property ===

While some Anarcho-capitalists support [[intellectual property]], many oppose it, saying that intellectual property infringes on physical property. Jeremy Spazmania, founder anti-state.com writes, "Is there nothing more preposterous than equating intellectual property, whatever the hell that is, with real, personal property?"[http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.html]. The debate over intellectual property among Anarcho-capitalists is still on-going.

=== Wage Labor ===

Anarcho-capitalists state that an employer-employee relationship is an elaborate and mutually profitable form of voluntary association. They resent government as a parasite that corrupts, biases, impedes and distorts what would otherwise be peaceful fair and free associations.

Anarcho-capitalists consider that in consenting to a contract, that each party was free to refuse, the contract is voluntary and therefore legitimate and beneficial, claiming any external power that attempts to prevent such relationship is itself an oppression to be fought.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that, no matter what social organization may or may not exist, social organizations will never eliminate the basic human requirement to work in order to support themselves. Therefore an objection based on a constraint that cannot be overcome is useless to argue about and not a rational objection at all. Additionally, they argue that while someone may not be able to refuse to work in general, one has the largest diversity on the free market with regard to their employers or beginning their own business operation. What matters is that no given employer/employee contract be coercive. Thus, Anarcho-capitalists believe that an individual may choose to work in any manner they wish, be it for a wage or for some other means of payment, so long as there is no coercion involved.

== Criticism of Anarcho-capitalism ==
{{critique section}}
:“[[freedom|Freedom]] without [[socialism|Socialism]] is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” ~ [[Mihail Bakunin]]
[[File:The anarchocapitalism.JPG|thumb|350 px|The anarcho-capitalism: "'''''Just for rich'''''"]]
Anarcho-capitalism is a view that departs from anarchist theory in that it regards only the government as unnecessary and harmful to human society. In its embrace of capitalist economics, Anarcho-capitalism contradicts classical and contemporary [[anarchism]], an [[anti-capitalism|anti-capitalist]] philosophy. Anarcho-capitalists are isolated from the anarchist community. Anarcho-capitalism is considered a paradox by most anarchists.

There is no form of [[capitalism]] that does not rely on the concentration of wealth and the existence of [[private property]], and the need for defense of this property through a public or private state. [[James Donald]] and [[Bryan Caplan]] have attempted (in the [[1990s]]) to frame their arguments in language and documents that appear to be legitimate because they use certain [[power word|key phrases]] and structure and some author's attempts to have some connection to scholarly circles with anarchist legitimacy. None of the big names and figures mentioned in anarcho-capitalist philosophy include actual anarchists (they mention [[Benjamin Tucker]] or [[Fred Woodworth]] only to grab an occasional condemnation of [[socialism]] or seeming advocacy of "[[personal property|anarchist private property]]", yet once this is established these people quickly disappear to be replaced by more "pure" capitalist individuals such as [[Bastiat]] and [[Rothbard]]).

Another major problem with the ideology of anarcho-capitalism is substitution of 'opportunity' for 'freedom', in the philosophical discourse. This allows to ignore the need to maintain the balance of freedoms, balance between positive and negative freedoms, as well as balance between freedoms of different individuals. Concentrating on a select few anarcho-capitalists show how opportunities allowed to those few are lessened by socialism, and thus conclude that socialism is unable to be free. This argument is dominant in the areas where [[state socialism]] has been a major ideology gaining or competing for dominance, this happens as a result of the dominance of individualistic element in the rebellion.

==From the "Anarcho"-capitalist FAQ:==

"What are the myths of socialism?

The just price doctrine and cost-price theories of value.
The medieval notion of just price permeates socialist thought. It holds that there is a God-given or intrinsic price of a good, regardless of people's wants, needs, and desires, or supply and demand. In the industrial-era form of this doctrine, the value of a good is deemed to be equal to the cost of production, usually in terms of labor time expended (see labor theory of value below). This cost-price notion was refuted in the 1800s by the marginalist revolution in economics, but nevertheless many socialists remain mired in this creationism of the left. The marginalist economists, notably the Austrian School, consider value to be subjective. It depends on each person and his or her particular situation and values. In the desert, one may prefer a cup of water to a diamond.

The labor theory of value.
The labor theory of value (LTV) is the cost-price doctrine which holds that all value springs from labor. In other words, it purports that land, capital, and entrepreneurship are all non-productive, and can impute no value to a good (except insofar as they represent past labor.) The general invalidity of all just price doctrines has already noted. The modern (marginalist) thought is that value is not determined by cost at all, but by the subjective preferences of the buyers interacting with the available quantity of the good in question. This is known as the subjective theory of value. Even on it's own intrinsic price terms, the LTV fails to account for factors of production other than labor. Standard counter-examples abound, e.g. No matter how much time you spend producing mud-pies, they are still worthless; A fresh bottle of wine gains value simply by aging; and so on. It is possible to formulate a purely descriptive LTV, which uses labor time as the measure of the productivity of land and capital, as Kevin Carson does in part 1 of his book Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, however the usefulness of this is dubious, and the temptation to slide into the prescriptive interpretation is enormous, as Carson does without justification in part 2 of the same book.

The exploitation theory.
An ''exploitation theory'' is any theory which purports to justify the claim that one "class" exploits another. In socialist theory, the claim is that a capitalist class exploits a proletarian class. Most exploitation theories are based on the antiquated LTV notion described above. Other socialists realize the weakness of this argument, and base their exploitation theory on unequal negotiating positions. While this latter approach may explain outcomes of bargaining, it evades the relevant issue - whether the trade was voluntary. Thus this approach also fails to support the claim that (so-called) "exploitation" is undesirable or unethical.

Note that even stipulating the "creationist" LTV, the socialist argument is insufficient for proving exploitation. It lacks an explanation of why workers voluntarily exchanging labor time for wages is exploitative. Bohm-Bawerk of the Austrian school of economics showed long ago (1884 in "Exploitation Theories") that profit from wages could be explained by interest on advanced pay, i.e. workers getting paid prior to their produce being sold.

Denial of scarcity (property, money).
This is a favorite of utopian socialists. The purpose of property is to solve the scarcity problem - that man's desires exceed available goods. This myth simply assumes away scarcity, as if this human condition was merely an effect of a particular property system rather than a fact of reality and human nature. The socialist denial of the validity of property involves an internal contradiction and much resulting "double-think." E.g. Proudhon writes that he's against contract property, but for possession property; yet he refuses to acknowledge that his "possession" is a type of property.

Another naive denial of scarcity is the claim of some socialists that a modern society can get along without money. Hayek made a living by refuting that view: in short, an economy needs the informational function of money to balance supply and demand. Without the amalgamation of the desires and preferences of the producers and consumers into price, chaos results. Shortages and surpluses abound when the communication of preferences is prevented or co-opted by rulers. Money is simply and ultimately the most liquid commodity in a market. There will always be a most liquid commodity in any market; ergo, there will be something used as money."

== Quotations ==

"capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." - Murray Rothbard

"Without property there is no free personal life. Without property there is no power to act. The man who treads on strange ground, touches strange property at every movement he makes is not a free man. And the word 'property' must be taken literally as ownership, or, as we say to-day, private property. Without private property there is no freedom." - Emil Brunner

== External links ==
*[http://www.anti-state.com Anti-state.com]
*[http://www.blackcrayon.com Black Crayon]
=== Criticism of Anarcho-capitalism ===

*[http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement by Jeff Draughn]
*[http://tigerden.com/~berios/lba.html Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy - by Peter Sabatini]
*[http://tigerden.com/~berios/spunk/Spunk051.html The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism, by Peter Marshall]
*[http://tigerden.com/~berios/spunk/Spunk143.txt Anarchism and Capitalism, by Andrew Flood]
*[http://infoshop.org/faq/append1.html Anarchism and "Anarcho"-capitalism]
*[http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2]

[[Category:Political theories]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalism]]

[[es:Anarcocapitalismo]]
[[fr:"anarcho"-capitalisme]]
[[it:anarco-capitalismo]]
[[de:Anarcho-Kapitalismus]]

Talk:Anarcho-Capitalism

2009-06-28T17:51:11Z

Eamr:

Sorry my bad English, but we will block you, if the vandalizing this page will be going on. Anarchy is a philosophy that gives no human rules, but capitalism is a structural rule-system. The international Anarchopedia-collective fight for free system without capitalism. In this reason think before you edit this article, we will block your IP. --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 17:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

__TOC__
==changing introduction==
I disagree with the current introduction of the article. I think it is controversial to portray anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, when it isn't usually recognized as such. Here is my proposed introduction:
''Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in [[classical liberalism]], with Anarchism and [[anarchist]] themes such as [[anti-statism|opposition to the State]] and [[anarcho-individualism|individual freedom]].'' ~[[User:Rev 22|''Rev 22'']] 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:Although i agree with you (on the opinion that [[capitalism]] and [[anarchism]] are in the direct opposition to each other. I believe that each movement must be described by its members, and then possibly we need to have some sort of critique of that movement from other positions. So i'd open up saying that ancaps describe themselves as this, and try to give explanation of their belief system, and then provide the rebuttle from [[anarchism|anarchist movement]]. [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <sup>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit&section=new}} Talk]</sup> {{{1|15:11}}}

::While I think it is useful to show the opposing point of views on the subject, I think it is important to try to reach a common, minimal definition. The definition implied in the current introduction is broad but substantially different from the ones given on [[Wikipedia:Anarcho-capitalism|Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&oldid=21093591] (certainly not an anarchist or socialist source) or the one used in [[An Anarchist FAQ]]. ~[[User:Rev 22|''Rev 22'']] 15:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with first poster here. The definition as it currently stands seems to be misleading. Many anarchists do not agree that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. [[User:Sturkster|Sturkster]] 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::::But we can't really change the definition of something because we disagree with it. We can disagree with it because of the definition though...  ~ [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <sup>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit&section=new}} Talk]</sup> {{{1|06:30}}}

:::::If the definition is incorrect, which I believe the current one is, it needs to be changed! I think that Rev 22s definition is a better more accurate one. [[User:Sturkster|Sturkster]] 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I agree that each section should be represented by its own respective supporters. It makes no sense, not to mention will make the entire site biased towards one view, if those holding differing opinions speak on behalf of a group they disagree with. Though I am not an Ancap, I disagree that Anarcho-Capitalism and more classical Anarchist theories are not outright opposed to each other - though there are areas of contention. I think it should be of utmost importance to present both sides without bias, as there is already enough bad blood between opposing camps. No one needs a 'ANCAP v ANSOC' screaming match. Secondly, there isn't just one all encompassing form of Anarcho-Capitalism, there are different rifts (as has been mentioned below about intellectual property). Anarcho-Capitalism is merely a subcategory of 'market Anarchism', as not all Anarchist who support free markets are, agree or identify with Anarcho-Capitalists. Though I agree the definition needs to be changed, I'm cautious of the definition by Rev22. --[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Unfortunately, we cant realistically follow this strategy in this case, because it has been the strategy of the capitalists to use our own desire for fairness and liberty in this specific case against us to undermine our own work, and to make us unwittingly carry their own propaganda and negate ourselves and our work. If they were not calling themselves anarchists or libertarians it would be another story, but in this case, it simply is a fact that we who run this site - and we who do anarchist work, who fight for the poor and oppressed and the over-worked - must take responsibility for it. If capitalism were not the dominant ideology of our time some could say then this wouldn't matter... but both today, and in a future society not ruled by capital, there is nothing stopping the capitalists from setting up their own web sites. Ever since Bryan Caplan started this whole mess, the strategy has been to replace any talk of anti-capitalism as a central tenant of anarchism with those who advocate capitalism under the guise of "anarcho-capitalism", "agorism" and "objectivism". It is no surprise that after initially using some of our own libertarian socialists against us (such as scouring the works of Tucker, Warren, Woodworth, etc. for seemingly pro-capitalist statements) .. these figures dissapear from the capitalist websites and are replaced with Rothbard, Rothbard, Rothbard, Misus, Misus, Misus, Bastiat, Bastiat, Bastiat, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand... and even campaigning for Ron Paul surfaces and dour images of the statue of liberty, doller signs, and the color gold replacing green or red. It is simply ridiculous. There are many "slippery slope conspiracies" that are nonsense, but this one clearly is real. If Anarchopedia is not based on definitions by anarchists, then why does it exist? It should be abolished and we should be perfectly happy with the wikipedia entries, which already repeatedly undermine anarchism's anti-capitalist character because authoritarians of various stripes (marxists, capitalists, fascists) are constantly rewriting them. It is a very bad idea to allow capitalists, fascists, religious fundamentalist people, authoritarian marxists, scientologists, and so on to define anarchopedia entries. They have their own sites.. the only possible reason for them to want to come here is to try to trick us into carrying propaganda that is actually attacking us in order to give it "more legitimacy" - they hate seeing the word liberty used in other contexts than theirs. They want to crush us under their boot while we smile back at them, and this is how they do it - by redefining language. . I understand perfectly how you feel, but this debate has also been waged on IndyMedia, with right-wingers like Fliipside in Bo ston claiming to have the right to present any news they wish, even quasi-fascist and racist positions and slanders and attacks on poor people and the mentally ill, and then turning around and saying they have every right to even if they have no interest in the beliefs of the founders and maintainers of the web site. . The wikipedia entries have mostly been allowed to be distorted by capitalists on the basis that "if it has a citation, it's legitimate"... so pretty much any quote, any statement can be allowed so long as it has a footnote - so the whole idea of a position, a standard vision or movement or concept, is rendered impossible by one of the built-in rules of the system itself (perhaps the Internet will in this way destroy liberty utterly some day? More likely our laziness will.) If anarchopedia and indymedia are to exist and be effective, they must be based on the work of the people who created them, the people who support them, and the general historical thrust of the movement they stand for. There are many cases of conservatives who simply change their labels to "left libertarian" (which is rightfully an anti-market, anti-capitalist label - they want to deny us even the possibility of calling ourselves libertarian because we are opposed to capitalism as egoists) and they then infiltrate organizations like Students for a Democratic Society - yet when you go to their web sites you see nothing but advocacy of economic domination schemes, private property, and no admission that class differences exist, or that the liberty of workers might in some even remote way be different from the liberty of the bosses. We do not even know if all of the people who are claiming "the people who define a category should be advocates of it" are in fact right wingers who adore private property who simply make themselves seem "nice" by smiling and "dressing down" (is Apple Computer a "nice" corporation but Microsoft or IBM is not, because they do this?) That Bryan Caplan, Murray Rothbard, and Rupert Murdoch all present themselves on the Internet with photos of them smiling enigmatically or smugly, talking in a "nice" way, and saying they are not connected to Latin American death-squads or work camps in China does not make this not the case. Either anarchism is serious as a movement, or it is just an empty and weak philosophy that capitalists and authoritarians can infiltrate and walk all over and crush the true desire for liberty, individualism, egoism and social freedom that all humanity must be allowed in defiance of capital's grip on the mind and the world. .. If we anarchists are expected to support and help run this specific system, and if it is to have any anarchist-specific purpose, then what is the point of allowing capitalists, fascists, and leninists to define it? Either abolish it and admit it is an impossibility, or allow we anarchists to run our own affairs. We are not telling them they can't have their own sites, where they may say whatever they wish, and nothing has stopped them from altering wikipedia. -[[User:151.204.254.237|User:151.204.254.237]] Jan 9, 2008 (Switching identity to user "KropotkinInBlack")

:::::::: So you entirely censoring out information is not propaganda? I suppose it is justified because it is fighting the 'capitalist conspiracy to weaken and attack your movement'? Being a former Anarcho-Capitalist, I can say you clearly have very little understanding as to what they propose and are censoring out any reference to them based on your inherent fear that there is some conspiracy to devalue your own beliefs. I can guarantee that there is not. If you don't like them, fine. I really don't care, that is your decision and you have probably come to it for your own unique reason that I'm sure is quite valid. If you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism, include your criticisms in the article so that others may decide they agree with you while being allowed to explore the issue with an open mind. There is no justifying deleting an entire article because you don't like what is being said.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::: I find it interesting that somebody wants to limit who can do something, in the name of anarchism. Isn't that kind of contradictory? [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: I find it interesting that you think fascists, stalinists, capitalists, or religious fundamentalists could do and say anything they like about what anarchism is and you just act like it's perfectly ok, even if this is a site set up by and run by anarchists who are clearly opposed to those things. --[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] Fri Jan 11 16:18:41 EST 2008
:::::::::::: Well, I don't know ''what'' you think freedom of speech means. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Do you know what freedom of speech means? Why is there no freedom of speech in the capitalist workplace? Why is there no "freedom of speech" for we anarchists who oppose capitalism on all the web sites run by capitalists? Why do you define freedom of speech to mean only your opinion (allowing capitalists to define anarchism here in an anarchist forum and gloss over other opinions and perspectives and most importantly: facts) but its perfectly ok for you to delete my own writing? Do you even care that you deleted writing by me and fellow anarchists from months ago? Do you? Wasn't it censorship when the previous version of it was altered and the text moved elsewhere where it is less likely to be seen? Wasn't it censorship when popular opinion among anarchists was simply changed to "a dispute"? And what of the way the capitalists treated us anarchists in the 90's when we begged people like Caplan and Donald not to lie about us or characterize us as murderers and liars (especially the Spanish Civil War anarchists) and plaster this opinion all over the Internet? Why did they ignore the fact that in 1994-1996, if you went to any library or bookstore or historical archive, the overwhelming history, opinion, and verifiable facts were that anarchism was anti-capitalist, yet on the Internet, people like Caplan, Donald, Friedman, etc simply chose to erase that history, characterize the anarchists of Goldman, Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc as liars and steamroll over our history? Who speaks for us when we suffer in minimum-wage jobs, or when we are put in jail for taking bread when we are starving? Who speaks for us when taxes are cut for the rich, and social programs destroyed, and when we anarchists try to replace them with mutual aid societies like free labor unions and cooperatives and federations we are smashed by the police or by armed private property-owners and their thugs and goons? Do you even realize that anarchists may not consider people like L. Susan Brown to actually be an authority on what "individualist" means at all, because her claim to "individualism" only applies favorably to people who seek wealth and private property? (The view of Wendy McElroy.) I suppose that perspective just doesn't matter, and you can smile and annihilate it forever because you always have to get your way, because you believe capitalism is always right, always innocent? Also, why is the link to the podcast here? Doesn't that imply that the podcast is pro-capitalist (simply using terms like "individual freedom" instead of "capitalism" to hide the truth), and if so, what purpose or reason is there for an anarchist web site to advertise/link to it? Why can't it be linked to from any number of right-wing pro-capitalist web sites? Do you have any idea how humiliating it is for us to have to carry the "gold and black flag"? (or the ridiculous dollar sign one) .. are you so insensitive that you don't even care about how anarchists would feel about this kind of action? From our perspective, we are talking about survival and basic human dignity. From a capitalist perspective, it's all about getting worked up over taxes or whether they can control more land this year than last year, squeeze more wealth out of us this year than last year, or force us to call capitalist behavior "liberty" or "individualism" even if we see that it is not. Why do you presume anarchists would simply have no problem with what you have suggested and implied: which is that even though we anarchists have set up and run this site, we have to bow down to the opinions and perspectives of non-anarchists? Why is it that so many of the entries written by you 3 people include references to names of people who are not even anarchists, but are economists and theorists who don't belong to anarchist organizations and do not write for anarchist publications or spend time in prison around the world from fighting capitalist and state-power domination and cruelty? Are you really so poor in your judgment? Do you really just not give a damn, and that is why you can simply wipe out/delete writing by a person like myself without a second thought?--[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] Sat Jan 12 17:08:20 EST 2008
:::::::::::::::: So, what I'm getting from you is, we should do as they do? Stoop to their level? [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 02:24, 13
::::::::::::::::: Kropotkin, we would not oppose your edits so if you didn't over haul entire articles and make them your personal rants against ideas you don't like. Add to this that you delete entire sections that others have put together - on the basis that you don't believe those ideas have a place here - and replace them with merely your own opinion. You rail against a supposed Anarcho-Capitalist conspiracy to defraud Anarchism, but you are just as guilty of propaganda, censorship and misleading statements. We understand you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism and are entirely to oppose to the ideal. Instead of deleting the entire section, why not professionally and objectively rewrite the criticism of Anarcho-Capitalism?--[[User:139.168.218.63|139.168.218.63]] 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::How is what you added in the last few months (altering what was there before, which clearly rejected the capitalists claims on this ANARCHIST web site) not a "rant" or an "opinion"? I used references that exist (though mentioned casually) to back up my arguments and examples. I don't think you even read what I have to say. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on. A fundamental class-based disagreement is different from what you are accusing. And if you want to talk about overhauling, why did you overhaul articles yourself? Who are you to say what is a POV or opinion, how do we know it isn't just yourself agreeing with the capitalists and wanting to push their propaganda? You ignored what I said about it being a fact that anarchism was overwhelmingly anticapitalist, and people like Caplan, Donald, and Friedman came here (to the Internet, USENET, and the web) and accused anarchists of being stalinists and murderers and liars for opposing capitalism, then made-up a fake anarchism based on people who were NOT anarchists and NOT libertarians. They NEVER used the terms to describe themselves, and it is revisionism to try to do that now. Misus, Ayn Rand, Bastiat - these people simply were not libertarians or anarchists by any measure. They only seem "libertarian" in comparison to *authoritarian* socialists and the monarchists (which, surprise-surprise, the capitalists sided with in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars), which is ridiculous and a straw man when they try to claim they are libertarian compared to anarchists. Also, format is less important than the accurate gist of an entry. If the general gist of something I write is accurate, then replacing it with a "Scholarly Sounding Lie" is not acceptable (this has been Bryan Caplan's strategy and basically it sucks. The confining walls, the prisons, and the bullets of smiling scholars and economists kill the workers and the poor just as much as the bullets of thugs and brutes.) The argument that I "write it better" is an invalid one. What if I don't have time? Are you really, honestly saying that the reasons capitalists deserve to be called anarchists, and everyone else (such as we anarchists) should be called authoritarians and have all our words and ideas stolen is because we aren't writing in some form that is perfectly acceptable to you? Are lives, happiness, and freedom worth less because they are not given a footnote? --[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 6:08PM EST January 13 2008

:::::::::::::::::::For a start, I've rewritten and expanded sections that because they were either a) immature or b) mere summaries. On most I expanded on information that was already there and added new sections. Unlike yourself '''I did not delete anything.''' I'm not talking about 'over-hauling', I'm talking about you deleting entire articles because ''you'' disagreed with their presence here. Even when you didn't delete an article, you merely edited the article to reflect your own personal bias against the position. I have so far refused to engage with you on a discussion about 'Anarchism and Capitalism', because this is not a place for theoretical Anarchist debate. As you probably already know this was intended to be a encyclopedia project, that also provides a refuge for those fed up with deletionist wikipedian editors. Just to place emphasis on something you haven't picked up yet, '''I am not arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism''', however I ''am'' arguing that censorship and bias have no place here. You arbitrarily delete articles '''because you don't like what is being said''', that is ''censorship''. I believe you have plenty of time to put more effort into what you write. You seem to have the time to write extremely long responses arguing points that aren't being addressed, perhaps you could channel that time into writing something constructive.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::What you call "immature" or "mere summaries" is your own POV, and what you replaced it with is false information based on capitalists making stuff up and posing as "libertarians" or "anarchists" when they clearly are not. If you don't think capitalism is authoritarian, then why do you consider yourself an anarchist? Why would you alter work in an anarchist forum? This is not Wikipedia. I suggest you are at more home there. And your accusations of censorship are false.. you are the one doing the censoring by redefining what anarchism is based on what people who represent the de-facto authoritarian economic arrangement we all live under right now. You are now simply ignoring arguments I make, so I think it's clear you have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own. I can't believe how arrogantyou are to not even address what I have said.--[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 7:20 PM EST Jan 2008

:::::::::::::::::::::Stop detracting from the subject at hand by attacking what I have edited in the past. As I have said, I am not going to engage you in a debate regarding my views on Capitalism and whether or not Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism. This is not the issue at hand. The issue is that you are intending to delete an entire article because '''you do not like what is being said'''. Your attacks against me are blatantly false and only serve to distract readers and myself from the point at hand - '''you censoring out information you personally disagree with by deleting an entire article'''. You are absolutely right in noting that I am ignoring your distracting and irrelevant arguments as you seem to want to draw me in a debate about something other than the issue at hand. I will have no respect for you so long as you continue to act in such a manner. I have tried to offer a compromise, or at least start negotiations for a compromise, but you have thrown that in my face with rant about a "capitalist conspiracy to destroy Anarchism."--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::: First of all ancaps don't agree with state-sponsored capitalism, so no they are not synonymous with statists. And actually, you're the one who's claiming a vicious hateful one-sided rant is somehow not censorship or propaganda, so I think it's clear ''you'' have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own, and seem to think anybody who thinks differently that you is part of some conspiracy to harm you in some way. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::: How about you stop detracting from the subject at hand by attacking what I have edited in the past. By erasing people's work you already are engaging in a "debate" by destroying anti-capitalist anarchist views and supporting capitalist ones. The issue is that you are intending to delete an entire article because '''you do not like what is being said'''. Your attacks against me are blatantly false and only serve to distract readers and myself from the point at hand. - '''you censoring out information you personally disagree with by deleting an entire article written months ago'''. I will have no respect for you so long as you continue to act in such a manner.I have tried to offer a compromise, or at least start negotiations for a compromise, but you have thrown that in my face with rant about a "supposed invalid editing of this entry." Also, so called "ancaps" support private state capitalism, and they have engaged in vicious and hateful propaganda on all of their own forums. You clearly are supporting them, because you keep reposting articles that enshrine them. For example, "ancap" is NOT a "libertarian" idea, it is a capitalist idea. So I think it's clear ''you'' have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own, and seem to think anybody who thinks differently about what capitalism is has no right to say anything about it, even if they are an anarchist in a forum set up and run by anarchists. [[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 10:54 AM EST Jan 15 2008
:::::::::::::::::::::: Never mind. I don't feel comfortable doing this, I don't like how it makes me feel, I don't like how it makes me act or look. It is better to put ones passion into things one has more control over, like art or authorship. I just want to remind people of something though. Capitalists are often trained to tell us what we want to hear. As the Internet grows, it's going to be harder to tell what the truth is. I do think it IS fair for people to have opinions, and points of view. If I had a choice, I would say that there are simply certain topics that wikis should not have entries for.... but the other thing, is that the left is very weak today, and has made a lot of stupid mistakes in the past. But no matter what we may say about theory, what really matters is what the great majority of us go through to stay alive and pay the rent and such, and what is expected of us to do that, The left never, ever should have drank from the cup of statism or authoritarianism, and the concept of "Socialism in one country" is a terrible one. It's either got to be all of us, or none of us. If the capitalists can dress themselves up in the language of liberty, at best they will simply keep things the way they are socio-economically for some longer number of years. But I do believe if you put a million "anarcho-capitalists" on a huge island, with no knowledge whatsoever of any social struggles that ever existed before, there would surely be some new movement that would come from their very own people who find they are doing most of the work for very little reward. What frustrates me is that the only choices the right offers for labels as to what to call a movement that resists capitalism is a shadow of something genuinely workable and non-capitalist. Leonard Cohen sang, "There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and those who say there isn't." I think this is one of the best examples of that situation. The words "liberty", "anarchy", freedom, and democracy can be redefined until they don't have any real meaning anymore. I feel sorry for the people in the future who may think that in order to fight those in power they have to abandon these words and concepts altogether. [[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 6:16 PM EST Jan 15 2008

This discussion is about introduction. Rev22 could purpose this introduction (may 2006) :
:"''Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom.''"
I propose an other APOV introduction (in french : L'"anarcho"-capitalisme est une thÃ©orie politique libÃ©rale, non-anarchiste, dÃ©sirant privatiser l'Ã‰tat, au profit de compagnies capitalistes en concurrence.) :
:"''The "anarcho"-capitalism is a liberal political philosophy and theory, non-anarchist, who want to privatize state for the benefit of capitalist competing companies.''"
About freedom of speech, i note just that capitalist and anarchist don't have the same POV about freedom. Then here we have to put for what freedom we fight. do we fight for hierarchical freedom ? no, we fight for equal freedom (freedom and equality). Allowing hierarchicals write articles in here is absurd. Do we allow fascists, racists, xenophob, homophob, write here ? i think and i hope no. we don't do that cause it is hierarchical VIEW, we have a non-racist VIEW (or something that negates this theory) on articles on racism, etc... capitalism in all their form are hierarchical, there is proprietarians and proletarians, like there is aryans and low race in racism theory...
Authoritarian theory like capitalists ones don't need Freedom, they need authority. We are not '''archist''', we are '''anarchist''', then we fight for an ANARCHIST VIEW, for FREEDOM VIEWS ! Capitalists are not for our freedom, they are for they proprietarian freedom. no concession with that. An anarchist project can't put an authoritarian view like if it was "justice", capitalism isn't justice...
I'll put a new introduction in some days. [[Talk:anarcho-capitalism#introduction|some critics about the actual introduction]]
-- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]] 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)'''
:maybe silence is an invitation to act, or maybe to repress after act... see you soon. -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''

==peace offering==
KropotkinInBlack,

Let me address some things first - I have never deleted an entire article save one because I felt it was named incorrectly and would cause trouble to those searching for the idea. I am merely opposed to your deleting of 80% of this article because you don't like what is being said. You have even stated as such.

''"If I had a choice, I would say that there are simply certain topics that wikis should not have entries for...."''

My question is, as an Anarchist, who gives you the authority to decide whether or not a certain wiki contained a particular topic? With what authority do you use to justify attempting to abolish something from an open, Anarchist organised, encyclopedia? You have made it well understood you do not like Anarcho-Capitalism, but that is no justification to delete all the information on this site regarding the subject. Information is important. I have my own views regarding the subject of Anarcho-Capitalism (I am not an ANCAP by the way, but I doubt you would agree or even accept my own Anarchist theory, but that is a discussion for another time), but I think accurate information about Anarcho-Capitalism should be provided for anyone who wishes to read it - whether they be for or against the opinion. This includes explaining all the terms ANCAPs use, where they come from, how they are used, the history, how it views society - everything. Deleting the article into a kind of summary criticism doesn't help anyone, instead it further promotes miscommunication - those who may claim to be for it may not know what they are/will be advocating, others who wish to learn about it to argue against it won't know what it is they're discussing (both situations are dangerous). On a personal level, do not think of me as a callous prick. I can agree with various statements you make. Particularly,

''"...the left is very weak today, and has made a lot of stupid mistakes in the past. But no matter what we may say about theory, what really matters is what the great majority of us go through to stay alive and pay the rent and such, and what is expected of us to do that, The left never, ever should have drank from the cup of statism or authoritarianism, and the concept of "Socialism in one country" is a terrible one. It's either got to be all of us, or none of us."''

Yet I don't agree with many of the conclusions you draw from them. I have already said you're not going to agree with me but if you wanted to discuss particular subjects with someone who holds a view other than you're own, I'd be willing to have that discussion with you. Basically, I don't care if you don't support my view and choose to argue against it with all your passion and conviction - in fact I would support such things and even defend your choice to do so. However, this is not the place to do it. All we will end up doing is creating a long comment/edit war, as we have done. We will then hate each other, cause others to hate us and take up space.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== IP ==

do any Anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property? It seems contradictory, as intellectual property is based on licensing that is protected by the state. --[[User:Cerpntaxt|Cerpntaxt]] 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

: I spoke to some of them, and it seems to be an issue of division amongst an-caps.  ~ [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <sup>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit&section=new}} Talk]</sup> [[2006]] [[November 22]] 20:33 <sub>([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]])</sub>

Most don't believe in patents and copyright. However most believe in a free-market system trademarks will be a valid form of IP. That is if I make a product I need to ensure that people know that it is me that made it and not a cheap ripe of. So I would put my label on it and If someone tried to copy that label they would be basically be triing to trick customers into thinking that they are actually buying my product. However all other forms of IP would probably not be considered property

== Means and Ends ==

First, I would like to explain my bias: I do not believe "anarcho"-capitalism falls within the anarchist movement or its history. I do not believe it has anything to do with anarchy. I shall now make my case.

In its broadest sense, anarchy is a movement to abolish hierarchy. Hence the name.

Its means are varied, but can be summed up thusly: "building a new society in the shell of the old". It was my understanding that this involves participatory democracy, worker action, or, more succinctly, socialism (i.e., the workers democratically owning and operating the means of production). By sharing the MOP, individuals could avoid unnecessary economic exploitation, prevent great wealth and thus power disparity, reduce the need for the state, and otherwise live quality lives. I realize this is an oversimplification, but the main idea is there.

"Anarcho"-capitalism does not hold as its goal the abolition of hierarchy. Nowhere in its precepts does it state this as a goal (other than the [mis]label). What it does desire is the unleashing of the "free" market from state/government control. The vagueness of such a goal allows for Rand-glorified corporate robber barons as well as starry-eyed idealists to be under the same gold and black banner. Granted, the latter may actually believe this is anarchy, and truly mean well, but I believe this would be the exception rather than the norm. As its means, "anarcho"-capitalism does NOT stress worker struggle; it does NOT focus on socialism (as I have defined it briefly above); it does NOT consider alienation, consumerism, worker exploitation, racism, environmental degradation, equality, feminism, etc, to be of concern. (Indeed, one of the founders of "anarcho"-capitalism was a misogynistic, anti-union racist.) In short, it rejects or ignores a great portion of anarchist history and tradition. What it does offer is appeals to an abstract economic model, but no real outline to get there, apart from merely disbanding governmental regulatory and taxing agencies (which on the surface seems like a worthy goal). The lack of attention given to the hierarchy-forming tendencies of disproportionate market transactions as a result of uneven property/power distribution and the downplaying or outright ignoring of socialism suggests that "anarcho"-capitalists are more concerned with not paying taxes than they are with the abolition of hierarchy. Furthermore, as an appeal to my own experience, I have never met or seen a self-proclaimed "anarcho"-capitalist at a worker's demonstration, an anti-war protest, nor nongovernmental charity organizations like Food Not Bombs. It may be my sampling bias, but I strongly believe it's because capitalism (in terms of property and labor relations) is incompatible with and wholly opposed to anarchy that adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism do not turn up at such functions.

I have clearly listed my biases, beliefs and observations in the hopes that someone will make something of them. I do not believe this article or any other pertaining to "anarcho"-capitalism should be removed or deleted from this website. Instead, it should be made plain that AnCap in only the most tenuous of ways has anything to do with anarchism proper, and is recognized within the anarchy movement as being bogus and false. Anarchy and "anarcho"-capitalism, despite the similarity in their names, are two separate and distinct ideologies with almost entirely different means and ends.

-Mookie
: This is a discussion page for the article, not anarcho-capitalism in general.It is not a place to post essays. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

i just registered because i want to give my contributions to anarchopedia. Portuguese is my native language, so i i'm also giving my contributions to anarchopedia in portuguese language.

About the subject of anarocaps i want to say many things, and discuss it with you...
In my opinion, anarcap is fake anarchism wich (like national-anarchism) is trying to misnderstand anarchist philosophy and ethics. Anarco-capitalism should not be referentiated in first page of anarchopedia, and should be explicit that it is not a type of anarchism. If there are anarcocap supporters here, as members of anarchopedia, then i prefer to not give any contributions to this project. anarcho-capitalism is industrial feudalism. Anarcocaps support hierarchy, private police, prisons, wich means private state. Are they in favour of all individual rights? I don't think so, would they support the individual right to do not starve, to expropiate land in order to survive or work in a different way? of course not, because private property denies it. The economic references in the governments of Tatcher, Reagen, Pinochet and other murderers, were the same that originated this capitalist ideology. Anarchism is not an economyc system. In anarchy individuals can choice, experiment, and change any kind of economic system, since it does not deny tha basics of anarchy. This means equal access to the conditions of existance, equal access to freedom.

- sufi@portugalmail.pt

:Greetings Sufi... there have been anarcho-capitalist supporters on this site. I think you are right saying that anarcho-capitalism does not support all individual rights ''per se'', being based on the non-aggression principle, rather than one of mutual assistance, actively supporting the rights of people. ~[[User:Rev 22|''Rev 22'']] 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To KropotkinInBlack

No we really don't care about how you "feel". This sight should care about informing people, allowing them to choose their own ideologies, without interference from the anarchy police like you. That is exactly what you are. Freedom of speech in a capitalist workplace? You do have freedom of speech, you just might get fired for it. You never have freedom of speech without consequences. A white man has the freedom to run up to a crowd of black people and yell nigger, but he's probably going to get smashed for it. But what you want to do is keep the speech from even being made. I think anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. People who say AxCapx is an oxymoron say that oppurtunity is different from freedom, or, results. What about the results of socialism? There has never been people with less freedom than those under a revolutionary socialist system. People will say that is not really what communism/socialism is supposed to be, but there is no way to implement what it is supposed to be. Am I gonna work if I ain't getting anything out of it? most of the time, no. Say we eliminate the market system. We'll end up trading necessities and services. I may not be able to call the police to get you off of the quarter acre that I decided was mine and worked to develop and make it useful, but I sure as hell can get you off with a few bullets. So see, capitalism will develop in anarchy either way.

What's more, other forms of anarchy are oxymorons too. Anarch"a"-Feminism? The whole reason men dominated women from the beginning was they are bigger and stronger. Animal liberation can't go with anarchy because well, that one is obvious. All forms of anarchy have some sort of contradiction to them. Anarcho-capitalism at least has a sustainable idea.

== introduction ==

Some APOV about this introduction :

*"Anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist libertarian view"
:if we change "capitalism" by "statism", "nationalism", "fascism" or others authoritarian object... can we say the same ? it is a strange POV which is enounced in this article... certainly not an APOV.

*"differs from anarchism on the matter of property rights"
:it's sure, anarchism reject wage labour and volountary slave.

*"Unlike Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism views the current capitalist system as a symptom of the state, which it defines as a monopoly on force"
:It is ridiculous. Anarchists views all the capitalist systems (in all forms, from privates to states) as needing authoritarian structures like national-states to private-states... the "anarcho"-capitalists want a private state which is enounced, from them, like a "defense agency" which has "a monopoly on force" on his properties. A state with "a monopoly on force" is a mean for "A"-C ; anarchists don't want/need authoritarians means, like states.

*"Anarcho-Capitalism embraces the free market which contrasts with traditional Anarchisms that have historically been opposed to market relationships"
:That's wrong.

*"It should be noted that Anarcho-Capitalists define the words "capitalism" and free market differently from classical Anarchists in favour of the Austrian economic definition of the words"
:To follow this sentence, then this anarchist project "anarchopedia" take the capitalist terminology basis ? Then, why '''Anarcho'''pedia ? the POV isn't anarchist here, it is capitalist !

*"This difference in terminology is often the basis for controversy"
:it is an excuse to make CapitalistPOV in here. what is the terminology problem to solve with others statists, nationalists, fascists, racists, etc for that they be anarchists ??? the terminology ???!!

*"Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist influenced by individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, is often thought of as the founder of modern anarcho-capitalism"
:were there first traditionnal anarcho-capitalism ? their influences except that tucker and spooner rejected wage labour.

In the [[fra:"anarcho"-capitalisme|french article on anarcho-capitalism]], the introduction is short :
:'''The "anarcho"-capitalism is a non-anarchist political theory, but liberal, wishing privatise State'''

hoping there's some anarchists here...

-- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''

== Flag doesn't exist ==

The yellow and black flag doesn't exist in the capitalist movement. we can suppress it. -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''
:well there's no reactions... i suppress it. -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''

== solidarity needed at wikipedia! ==

(i post this here because it's an active page) comrades: the main editor of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery wage slavery at wikipedia] is a good social anarchist comrade who i won't name because i don't want to cause him trouble, but i believe you would know of him if i did name him. please don't name him here if you know who he is, please trust me on this, it will hurt the cause, but i can't explain how without hurting it myself. anyway the capitalists have now taken over the article LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO!!! (i am so furious i'm almost in tears! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN! they took over again! they even took down the wobblies poster which was there for years!!!) this was one of the few articles at wikipedia that portrayed the class struggle in a historically accurate light, solely because of this unnamed comrade who did his good work while staying below the capitalists' radar. but now they've spotted him and trumped up charges against him like they always do and i don't know what else to do but come here and request help! they are quickly twisting the article to their pov like all the rest and he will never get it back from them unless we all stand in solidarity with him and defend his edits! i am already blocked from wikipedia for similar trumped up charges but i will keep trying to get a new ip from my isp (i am using tor now so they won't know which wikipedia editor i am if they see this, and i know they will because i know they are here as well trying to take over). i'm sure you all know how to defend a comrade without raising suspicion. please do it now if you want to help save one of the last honest class struggle articles in capitalopedia! THANK YOU COMRADES!

== VoF ??? ==

What is the reason of the template of "voice of freedom" ? what can it give to the reader like me ? -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]] 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)'''

== Message to all who come here and mess up this article with pro-capitalist bullshit, rtfm guys!!! ==

1. if someone thinks it is ok to delete or rewrite the criticism section in this article, s/he should think about that this is an anarchist encyclopedia, see:

[[Anarchopedia]]

2. if you reached to read the [[Anarchopedia]]-article, also read our standpoint about "anarcho-capitalism":

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/what_anarchism_is_not#Anarcho-capitalism

3. if you still think this is a platform for "anarcho-capitalists" or "free market anarchists" then you obviously cannot read or you just came here to destroy and vandalise this project!

Thus, if you are not able to respect our rules, search for another platform (mises.org), wiki (wikipedia) or whatever...

--[[User:Maly krtek|Maly Krtek]] 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-Capitalism

2009-06-28T17:17:22Z

Eamr:

Sorry my bad English, but we will block you, if the vandalizing this page will be going on. Anarchy is a philosophy that gives no human rules, but capitalism is a structural rule-system. The international Anarchopedia-collective fight for free system without capitalism. In this reason think before you edit this article, we want to block your IP. --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 17:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

__TOC__
==changing introduction==
I disagree with the current introduction of the article. I think it is controversial to portray anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, when it isn't usually recognized as such. Here is my proposed introduction:
''Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in [[classical liberalism]], with Anarchism and [[anarchist]] themes such as [[anti-statism|opposition to the State]] and [[anarcho-individualism|individual freedom]].'' ~[[User:Rev 22|''Rev 22'']] 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:Although i agree with you (on the opinion that [[capitalism]] and [[anarchism]] are in the direct opposition to each other. I believe that each movement must be described by its members, and then possibly we need to have some sort of critique of that movement from other positions. So i'd open up saying that ancaps describe themselves as this, and try to give explanation of their belief system, and then provide the rebuttle from [[anarchism|anarchist movement]]. [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <sup>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit&section=new}} Talk]</sup> {{{1|15:11}}}

::While I think it is useful to show the opposing point of views on the subject, I think it is important to try to reach a common, minimal definition. The definition implied in the current introduction is broad but substantially different from the ones given on [[Wikipedia:Anarcho-capitalism|Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&oldid=21093591] (certainly not an anarchist or socialist source) or the one used in [[An Anarchist FAQ]]. ~[[User:Rev 22|''Rev 22'']] 15:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with first poster here. The definition as it currently stands seems to be misleading. Many anarchists do not agree that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. [[User:Sturkster|Sturkster]] 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::::But we can't really change the definition of something because we disagree with it. We can disagree with it because of the definition though...  ~ [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <sup>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit&section=new}} Talk]</sup> {{{1|06:30}}}

:::::If the definition is incorrect, which I believe the current one is, it needs to be changed! I think that Rev 22s definition is a better more accurate one. [[User:Sturkster|Sturkster]] 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I agree that each section should be represented by its own respective supporters. It makes no sense, not to mention will make the entire site biased towards one view, if those holding differing opinions speak on behalf of a group they disagree with. Though I am not an Ancap, I disagree that Anarcho-Capitalism and more classical Anarchist theories are not outright opposed to each other - though there are areas of contention. I think it should be of utmost importance to present both sides without bias, as there is already enough bad blood between opposing camps. No one needs a 'ANCAP v ANSOC' screaming match. Secondly, there isn't just one all encompassing form of Anarcho-Capitalism, there are different rifts (as has been mentioned below about intellectual property). Anarcho-Capitalism is merely a subcategory of 'market Anarchism', as not all Anarchist who support free markets are, agree or identify with Anarcho-Capitalists. Though I agree the definition needs to be changed, I'm cautious of the definition by Rev22. --[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Unfortunately, we cant realistically follow this strategy in this case, because it has been the strategy of the capitalists to use our own desire for fairness and liberty in this specific case against us to undermine our own work, and to make us unwittingly carry their own propaganda and negate ourselves and our work. If they were not calling themselves anarchists or libertarians it would be another story, but in this case, it simply is a fact that we who run this site - and we who do anarchist work, who fight for the poor and oppressed and the over-worked - must take responsibility for it. If capitalism were not the dominant ideology of our time some could say then this wouldn't matter... but both today, and in a future society not ruled by capital, there is nothing stopping the capitalists from setting up their own web sites. Ever since Bryan Caplan started this whole mess, the strategy has been to replace any talk of anti-capitalism as a central tenant of anarchism with those who advocate capitalism under the guise of "anarcho-capitalism", "agorism" and "objectivism". It is no surprise that after initially using some of our own libertarian socialists against us (such as scouring the works of Tucker, Warren, Woodworth, etc. for seemingly pro-capitalist statements) .. these figures dissapear from the capitalist websites and are replaced with Rothbard, Rothbard, Rothbard, Misus, Misus, Misus, Bastiat, Bastiat, Bastiat, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand... and even campaigning for Ron Paul surfaces and dour images of the statue of liberty, doller signs, and the color gold replacing green or red. It is simply ridiculous. There are many "slippery slope conspiracies" that are nonsense, but this one clearly is real. If Anarchopedia is not based on definitions by anarchists, then why does it exist? It should be abolished and we should be perfectly happy with the wikipedia entries, which already repeatedly undermine anarchism's anti-capitalist character because authoritarians of various stripes (marxists, capitalists, fascists) are constantly rewriting them. It is a very bad idea to allow capitalists, fascists, religious fundamentalist people, authoritarian marxists, scientologists, and so on to define anarchopedia entries. They have their own sites.. the only possible reason for them to want to come here is to try to trick us into carrying propaganda that is actually attacking us in order to give it "more legitimacy" - they hate seeing the word liberty used in other contexts than theirs. They want to crush us under their boot while we smile back at them, and this is how they do it - by redefining language. . I understand perfectly how you feel, but this debate has also been waged on IndyMedia, with right-wingers like Fliipside in Bo ston claiming to have the right to present any news they wish, even quasi-fascist and racist positions and slanders and attacks on poor people and the mentally ill, and then turning around and saying they have every right to even if they have no interest in the beliefs of the founders and maintainers of the web site. . The wikipedia entries have mostly been allowed to be distorted by capitalists on the basis that "if it has a citation, it's legitimate"... so pretty much any quote, any statement can be allowed so long as it has a footnote - so the whole idea of a position, a standard vision or movement or concept, is rendered impossible by one of the built-in rules of the system itself (perhaps the Internet will in this way destroy liberty utterly some day? More likely our laziness will.) If anarchopedia and indymedia are to exist and be effective, they must be based on the work of the people who created them, the people who support them, and the general historical thrust of the movement they stand for. There are many cases of conservatives who simply change their labels to "left libertarian" (which is rightfully an anti-market, anti-capitalist label - they want to deny us even the possibility of calling ourselves libertarian because we are opposed to capitalism as egoists) and they then infiltrate organizations like Students for a Democratic Society - yet when you go to their web sites you see nothing but advocacy of economic domination schemes, private property, and no admission that class differences exist, or that the liberty of workers might in some even remote way be different from the liberty of the bosses. We do not even know if all of the people who are claiming "the people who define a category should be advocates of it" are in fact right wingers who adore private property who simply make themselves seem "nice" by smiling and "dressing down" (is Apple Computer a "nice" corporation but Microsoft or IBM is not, because they do this?) That Bryan Caplan, Murray Rothbard, and Rupert Murdoch all present themselves on the Internet with photos of them smiling enigmatically or smugly, talking in a "nice" way, and saying they are not connected to Latin American death-squads or work camps in China does not make this not the case. Either anarchism is serious as a movement, or it is just an empty and weak philosophy that capitalists and authoritarians can infiltrate and walk all over and crush the true desire for liberty, individualism, egoism and social freedom that all humanity must be allowed in defiance of capital's grip on the mind and the world. .. If we anarchists are expected to support and help run this specific system, and if it is to have any anarchist-specific purpose, then what is the point of allowing capitalists, fascists, and leninists to define it? Either abolish it and admit it is an impossibility, or allow we anarchists to run our own affairs. We are not telling them they can't have their own sites, where they may say whatever they wish, and nothing has stopped them from altering wikipedia. -[[User:151.204.254.237|User:151.204.254.237]] Jan 9, 2008 (Switching identity to user "KropotkinInBlack")

:::::::: So you entirely censoring out information is not propaganda? I suppose it is justified because it is fighting the 'capitalist conspiracy to weaken and attack your movement'? Being a former Anarcho-Capitalist, I can say you clearly have very little understanding as to what they propose and are censoring out any reference to them based on your inherent fear that there is some conspiracy to devalue your own beliefs. I can guarantee that there is not. If you don't like them, fine. I really don't care, that is your decision and you have probably come to it for your own unique reason that I'm sure is quite valid. If you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism, include your criticisms in the article so that others may decide they agree with you while being allowed to explore the issue with an open mind. There is no justifying deleting an entire article because you don't like what is being said.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::: I find it interesting that somebody wants to limit who can do something, in the name of anarchism. Isn't that kind of contradictory? [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: I find it interesting that you think fascists, stalinists, capitalists, or religious fundamentalists could do and say anything they like about what anarchism is and you just act like it's perfectly ok, even if this is a site set up by and run by anarchists who are clearly opposed to those things. --[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] Fri Jan 11 16:18:41 EST 2008
:::::::::::: Well, I don't know ''what'' you think freedom of speech means. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Do you know what freedom of speech means? Why is there no freedom of speech in the capitalist workplace? Why is there no "freedom of speech" for we anarchists who oppose capitalism on all the web sites run by capitalists? Why do you define freedom of speech to mean only your opinion (allowing capitalists to define anarchism here in an anarchist forum and gloss over other opinions and perspectives and most importantly: facts) but its perfectly ok for you to delete my own writing? Do you even care that you deleted writing by me and fellow anarchists from months ago? Do you? Wasn't it censorship when the previous version of it was altered and the text moved elsewhere where it is less likely to be seen? Wasn't it censorship when popular opinion among anarchists was simply changed to "a dispute"? And what of the way the capitalists treated us anarchists in the 90's when we begged people like Caplan and Donald not to lie about us or characterize us as murderers and liars (especially the Spanish Civil War anarchists) and plaster this opinion all over the Internet? Why did they ignore the fact that in 1994-1996, if you went to any library or bookstore or historical archive, the overwhelming history, opinion, and verifiable facts were that anarchism was anti-capitalist, yet on the Internet, people like Caplan, Donald, Friedman, etc simply chose to erase that history, characterize the anarchists of Goldman, Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc as liars and steamroll over our history? Who speaks for us when we suffer in minimum-wage jobs, or when we are put in jail for taking bread when we are starving? Who speaks for us when taxes are cut for the rich, and social programs destroyed, and when we anarchists try to replace them with mutual aid societies like free labor unions and cooperatives and federations we are smashed by the police or by armed private property-owners and their thugs and goons? Do you even realize that anarchists may not consider people like L. Susan Brown to actually be an authority on what "individualist" means at all, because her claim to "individualism" only applies favorably to people who seek wealth and private property? (The view of Wendy McElroy.) I suppose that perspective just doesn't matter, and you can smile and annihilate it forever because you always have to get your way, because you believe capitalism is always right, always innocent? Also, why is the link to the podcast here? Doesn't that imply that the podcast is pro-capitalist (simply using terms like "individual freedom" instead of "capitalism" to hide the truth), and if so, what purpose or reason is there for an anarchist web site to advertise/link to it? Why can't it be linked to from any number of right-wing pro-capitalist web sites? Do you have any idea how humiliating it is for us to have to carry the "gold and black flag"? (or the ridiculous dollar sign one) .. are you so insensitive that you don't even care about how anarchists would feel about this kind of action? From our perspective, we are talking about survival and basic human dignity. From a capitalist perspective, it's all about getting worked up over taxes or whether they can control more land this year than last year, squeeze more wealth out of us this year than last year, or force us to call capitalist behavior "liberty" or "individualism" even if we see that it is not. Why do you presume anarchists would simply have no problem with what you have suggested and implied: which is that even though we anarchists have set up and run this site, we have to bow down to the opinions and perspectives of non-anarchists? Why is it that so many of the entries written by you 3 people include references to names of people who are not even anarchists, but are economists and theorists who don't belong to anarchist organizations and do not write for anarchist publications or spend time in prison around the world from fighting capitalist and state-power domination and cruelty? Are you really so poor in your judgment? Do you really just not give a damn, and that is why you can simply wipe out/delete writing by a person like myself without a second thought?--[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] Sat Jan 12 17:08:20 EST 2008
:::::::::::::::: So, what I'm getting from you is, we should do as they do? Stoop to their level? [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 02:24, 13
::::::::::::::::: Kropotkin, we would not oppose your edits so if you didn't over haul entire articles and make them your personal rants against ideas you don't like. Add to this that you delete entire sections that others have put together - on the basis that you don't believe those ideas have a place here - and replace them with merely your own opinion. You rail against a supposed Anarcho-Capitalist conspiracy to defraud Anarchism, but you are just as guilty of propaganda, censorship and misleading statements. We understand you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism and are entirely to oppose to the ideal. Instead of deleting the entire section, why not professionally and objectively rewrite the criticism of Anarcho-Capitalism?--[[User:139.168.218.63|139.168.218.63]] 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::How is what you added in the last few months (altering what was there before, which clearly rejected the capitalists claims on this ANARCHIST web site) not a "rant" or an "opinion"? I used references that exist (though mentioned casually) to back up my arguments and examples. I don't think you even read what I have to say. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on. A fundamental class-based disagreement is different from what you are accusing. And if you want to talk about overhauling, why did you overhaul articles yourself? Who are you to say what is a POV or opinion, how do we know it isn't just yourself agreeing with the capitalists and wanting to push their propaganda? You ignored what I said about it being a fact that anarchism was overwhelmingly anticapitalist, and people like Caplan, Donald, and Friedman came here (to the Internet, USENET, and the web) and accused anarchists of being stalinists and murderers and liars for opposing capitalism, then made-up a fake anarchism based on people who were NOT anarchists and NOT libertarians. They NEVER used the terms to describe themselves, and it is revisionism to try to do that now. Misus, Ayn Rand, Bastiat - these people simply were not libertarians or anarchists by any measure. They only seem "libertarian" in comparison to *authoritarian* socialists and the monarchists (which, surprise-surprise, the capitalists sided with in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars), which is ridiculous and a straw man when they try to claim they are libertarian compared to anarchists. Also, format is less important than the accurate gist of an entry. If the general gist of something I write is accurate, then replacing it with a "Scholarly Sounding Lie" is not acceptable (this has been Bryan Caplan's strategy and basically it sucks. The confining walls, the prisons, and the bullets of smiling scholars and economists kill the workers and the poor just as much as the bullets of thugs and brutes.) The argument that I "write it better" is an invalid one. What if I don't have time? Are you really, honestly saying that the reasons capitalists deserve to be called anarchists, and everyone else (such as we anarchists) should be called authoritarians and have all our words and ideas stolen is because we aren't writing in some form that is perfectly acceptable to you? Are lives, happiness, and freedom worth less because they are not given a footnote? --[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 6:08PM EST January 13 2008

:::::::::::::::::::For a start, I've rewritten and expanded sections that because they were either a) immature or b) mere summaries. On most I expanded on information that was already there and added new sections. Unlike yourself '''I did not delete anything.''' I'm not talking about 'over-hauling', I'm talking about you deleting entire articles because ''you'' disagreed with their presence here. Even when you didn't delete an article, you merely edited the article to reflect your own personal bias against the position. I have so far refused to engage with you on a discussion about 'Anarchism and Capitalism', because this is not a place for theoretical Anarchist debate. As you probably already know this was intended to be a encyclopedia project, that also provides a refuge for those fed up with deletionist wikipedian editors. Just to place emphasis on something you haven't picked up yet, '''I am not arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism''', however I ''am'' arguing that censorship and bias have no place here. You arbitrarily delete articles '''because you don't like what is being said''', that is ''censorship''. I believe you have plenty of time to put more effort into what you write. You seem to have the time to write extremely long responses arguing points that aren't being addressed, perhaps you could channel that time into writing something constructive.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::What you call "immature" or "mere summaries" is your own POV, and what you replaced it with is false information based on capitalists making stuff up and posing as "libertarians" or "anarchists" when they clearly are not. If you don't think capitalism is authoritarian, then why do you consider yourself an anarchist? Why would you alter work in an anarchist forum? This is not Wikipedia. I suggest you are at more home there. And your accusations of censorship are false.. you are the one doing the censoring by redefining what anarchism is based on what people who represent the de-facto authoritarian economic arrangement we all live under right now. You are now simply ignoring arguments I make, so I think it's clear you have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own. I can't believe how arrogantyou are to not even address what I have said.--[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 7:20 PM EST Jan 2008

:::::::::::::::::::::Stop detracting from the subject at hand by attacking what I have edited in the past. As I have said, I am not going to engage you in a debate regarding my views on Capitalism and whether or not Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism. This is not the issue at hand. The issue is that you are intending to delete an entire article because '''you do not like what is being said'''. Your attacks against me are blatantly false and only serve to distract readers and myself from the point at hand - '''you censoring out information you personally disagree with by deleting an entire article'''. You are absolutely right in noting that I am ignoring your distracting and irrelevant arguments as you seem to want to draw me in a debate about something other than the issue at hand. I will have no respect for you so long as you continue to act in such a manner. I have tried to offer a compromise, or at least start negotiations for a compromise, but you have thrown that in my face with rant about a "capitalist conspiracy to destroy Anarchism."--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::: First of all ancaps don't agree with state-sponsored capitalism, so no they are not synonymous with statists. And actually, you're the one who's claiming a vicious hateful one-sided rant is somehow not censorship or propaganda, so I think it's clear ''you'' have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own, and seem to think anybody who thinks differently that you is part of some conspiracy to harm you in some way. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::: How about you stop detracting from the subject at hand by attacking what I have edited in the past. By erasing people's work you already are engaging in a "debate" by destroying anti-capitalist anarchist views and supporting capitalist ones. The issue is that you are intending to delete an entire article because '''you do not like what is being said'''. Your attacks against me are blatantly false and only serve to distract readers and myself from the point at hand. - '''you censoring out information you personally disagree with by deleting an entire article written months ago'''. I will have no respect for you so long as you continue to act in such a manner.I have tried to offer a compromise, or at least start negotiations for a compromise, but you have thrown that in my face with rant about a "supposed invalid editing of this entry." Also, so called "ancaps" support private state capitalism, and they have engaged in vicious and hateful propaganda on all of their own forums. You clearly are supporting them, because you keep reposting articles that enshrine them. For example, "ancap" is NOT a "libertarian" idea, it is a capitalist idea. So I think it's clear ''you'' have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own, and seem to think anybody who thinks differently about what capitalism is has no right to say anything about it, even if they are an anarchist in a forum set up and run by anarchists. [[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 10:54 AM EST Jan 15 2008
:::::::::::::::::::::: Never mind. I don't feel comfortable doing this, I don't like how it makes me feel, I don't like how it makes me act or look. It is better to put ones passion into things one has more control over, like art or authorship. I just want to remind people of something though. Capitalists are often trained to tell us what we want to hear. As the Internet grows, it's going to be harder to tell what the truth is. I do think it IS fair for people to have opinions, and points of view. If I had a choice, I would say that there are simply certain topics that wikis should not have entries for.... but the other thing, is that the left is very weak today, and has made a lot of stupid mistakes in the past. But no matter what we may say about theory, what really matters is what the great majority of us go through to stay alive and pay the rent and such, and what is expected of us to do that, The left never, ever should have drank from the cup of statism or authoritarianism, and the concept of "Socialism in one country" is a terrible one. It's either got to be all of us, or none of us. If the capitalists can dress themselves up in the language of liberty, at best they will simply keep things the way they are socio-economically for some longer number of years. But I do believe if you put a million "anarcho-capitalists" on a huge island, with no knowledge whatsoever of any social struggles that ever existed before, there would surely be some new movement that would come from their very own people who find they are doing most of the work for very little reward. What frustrates me is that the only choices the right offers for labels as to what to call a movement that resists capitalism is a shadow of something genuinely workable and non-capitalist. Leonard Cohen sang, "There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and those who say there isn't." I think this is one of the best examples of that situation. The words "liberty", "anarchy", freedom, and democracy can be redefined until they don't have any real meaning anymore. I feel sorry for the people in the future who may think that in order to fight those in power they have to abandon these words and concepts altogether. [[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 6:16 PM EST Jan 15 2008

This discussion is about introduction. Rev22 could purpose this introduction (may 2006) :
:"''Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom.''"
I propose an other APOV introduction (in french : L'"anarcho"-capitalisme est une thÃ©orie politique libÃ©rale, non-anarchiste, dÃ©sirant privatiser l'Ã‰tat, au profit de compagnies capitalistes en concurrence.) :
:"''The "anarcho"-capitalism is a liberal political philosophy and theory, non-anarchist, who want to privatize state for the benefit of capitalist competing companies.''"
About freedom of speech, i note just that capitalist and anarchist don't have the same POV about freedom. Then here we have to put for what freedom we fight. do we fight for hierarchical freedom ? no, we fight for equal freedom (freedom and equality). Allowing hierarchicals write articles in here is absurd. Do we allow fascists, racists, xenophob, homophob, write here ? i think and i hope no. we don't do that cause it is hierarchical VIEW, we have a non-racist VIEW (or something that negates this theory) on articles on racism, etc... capitalism in all their form are hierarchical, there is proprietarians and proletarians, like there is aryans and low race in racism theory...
Authoritarian theory like capitalists ones don't need Freedom, they need authority. We are not '''archist''', we are '''anarchist''', then we fight for an ANARCHIST VIEW, for FREEDOM VIEWS ! Capitalists are not for our freedom, they are for they proprietarian freedom. no concession with that. An anarchist project can't put an authoritarian view like if it was "justice", capitalism isn't justice...
I'll put a new introduction in some days. [[Talk:anarcho-capitalism#introduction|some critics about the actual introduction]]
-- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]] 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)'''
:maybe silence is an invitation to act, or maybe to repress after act... see you soon. -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''

==peace offering==
KropotkinInBlack,

Let me address some things first - I have never deleted an entire article save one because I felt it was named incorrectly and would cause trouble to those searching for the idea. I am merely opposed to your deleting of 80% of this article because you don't like what is being said. You have even stated as such.

''"If I had a choice, I would say that there are simply certain topics that wikis should not have entries for...."''

My question is, as an Anarchist, who gives you the authority to decide whether or not a certain wiki contained a particular topic? With what authority do you use to justify attempting to abolish something from an open, Anarchist organised, encyclopedia? You have made it well understood you do not like Anarcho-Capitalism, but that is no justification to delete all the information on this site regarding the subject. Information is important. I have my own views regarding the subject of Anarcho-Capitalism (I am not an ANCAP by the way, but I doubt you would agree or even accept my own Anarchist theory, but that is a discussion for another time), but I think accurate information about Anarcho-Capitalism should be provided for anyone who wishes to read it - whether they be for or against the opinion. This includes explaining all the terms ANCAPs use, where they come from, how they are used, the history, how it views society - everything. Deleting the article into a kind of summary criticism doesn't help anyone, instead it further promotes miscommunication - those who may claim to be for it may not know what they are/will be advocating, others who wish to learn about it to argue against it won't know what it is they're discussing (both situations are dangerous). On a personal level, do not think of me as a callous prick. I can agree with various statements you make. Particularly,

''"...the left is very weak today, and has made a lot of stupid mistakes in the past. But no matter what we may say about theory, what really matters is what the great majority of us go through to stay alive and pay the rent and such, and what is expected of us to do that, The left never, ever should have drank from the cup of statism or authoritarianism, and the concept of "Socialism in one country" is a terrible one. It's either got to be all of us, or none of us."''

Yet I don't agree with many of the conclusions you draw from them. I have already said you're not going to agree with me but if you wanted to discuss particular subjects with someone who holds a view other than you're own, I'd be willing to have that discussion with you. Basically, I don't care if you don't support my view and choose to argue against it with all your passion and conviction - in fact I would support such things and even defend your choice to do so. However, this is not the place to do it. All we will end up doing is creating a long comment/edit war, as we have done. We will then hate each other, cause others to hate us and take up space.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== IP ==

do any Anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property? It seems contradictory, as intellectual property is based on licensing that is protected by the state. --[[User:Cerpntaxt|Cerpntaxt]] 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

: I spoke to some of them, and it seems to be an issue of division amongst an-caps.  ~ [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <sup>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit&section=new}} Talk]</sup> [[2006]] [[November 22]] 20:33 <sub>([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]])</sub>

Most don't believe in patents and copyright. However most believe in a free-market system trademarks will be a valid form of IP. That is if I make a product I need to ensure that people know that it is me that made it and not a cheap ripe of. So I would put my label on it and If someone tried to copy that label they would be basically be triing to trick customers into thinking that they are actually buying my product. However all other forms of IP would probably not be considered property

== Means and Ends ==

First, I would like to explain my bias: I do not believe "anarcho"-capitalism falls within the anarchist movement or its history. I do not believe it has anything to do with anarchy. I shall now make my case.

In its broadest sense, anarchy is a movement to abolish hierarchy. Hence the name.

Its means are varied, but can be summed up thusly: "building a new society in the shell of the old". It was my understanding that this involves participatory democracy, worker action, or, more succinctly, socialism (i.e., the workers democratically owning and operating the means of production). By sharing the MOP, individuals could avoid unnecessary economic exploitation, prevent great wealth and thus power disparity, reduce the need for the state, and otherwise live quality lives. I realize this is an oversimplification, but the main idea is there.

"Anarcho"-capitalism does not hold as its goal the abolition of hierarchy. Nowhere in its precepts does it state this as a goal (other than the [mis]label). What it does desire is the unleashing of the "free" market from state/government control. The vagueness of such a goal allows for Rand-glorified corporate robber barons as well as starry-eyed idealists to be under the same gold and black banner. Granted, the latter may actually believe this is anarchy, and truly mean well, but I believe this would be the exception rather than the norm. As its means, "anarcho"-capitalism does NOT stress worker struggle; it does NOT focus on socialism (as I have defined it briefly above); it does NOT consider alienation, consumerism, worker exploitation, racism, environmental degradation, equality, feminism, etc, to be of concern. (Indeed, one of the founders of "anarcho"-capitalism was a misogynistic, anti-union racist.) In short, it rejects or ignores a great portion of anarchist history and tradition. What it does offer is appeals to an abstract economic model, but no real outline to get there, apart from merely disbanding governmental regulatory and taxing agencies (which on the surface seems like a worthy goal). The lack of attention given to the hierarchy-forming tendencies of disproportionate market transactions as a result of uneven property/power distribution and the downplaying or outright ignoring of socialism suggests that "anarcho"-capitalists are more concerned with not paying taxes than they are with the abolition of hierarchy. Furthermore, as an appeal to my own experience, I have never met or seen a self-proclaimed "anarcho"-capitalist at a worker's demonstration, an anti-war protest, nor nongovernmental charity organizations like Food Not Bombs. It may be my sampling bias, but I strongly believe it's because capitalism (in terms of property and labor relations) is incompatible with and wholly opposed to anarchy that adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism do not turn up at such functions.

I have clearly listed my biases, beliefs and observations in the hopes that someone will make something of them. I do not believe this article or any other pertaining to "anarcho"-capitalism should be removed or deleted from this website. Instead, it should be made plain that AnCap in only the most tenuous of ways has anything to do with anarchism proper, and is recognized within the anarchy movement as being bogus and false. Anarchy and "anarcho"-capitalism, despite the similarity in their names, are two separate and distinct ideologies with almost entirely different means and ends.

-Mookie
: This is a discussion page for the article, not anarcho-capitalism in general.It is not a place to post essays. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

i just registered because i want to give my contributions to anarchopedia. Portuguese is my native language, so i i'm also giving my contributions to anarchopedia in portuguese language.

About the subject of anarocaps i want to say many things, and discuss it with you...
In my opinion, anarcap is fake anarchism wich (like national-anarchism) is trying to misnderstand anarchist philosophy and ethics. Anarco-capitalism should not be referentiated in first page of anarchopedia, and should be explicit that it is not a type of anarchism. If there are anarcocap supporters here, as members of anarchopedia, then i prefer to not give any contributions to this project. anarcho-capitalism is industrial feudalism. Anarcocaps support hierarchy, private police, prisons, wich means private state. Are they in favour of all individual rights? I don't think so, would they support the individual right to do not starve, to expropiate land in order to survive or work in a different way? of course not, because private property denies it. The economic references in the governments of Tatcher, Reagen, Pinochet and other murderers, were the same that originated this capitalist ideology. Anarchism is not an economyc system. In anarchy individuals can choice, experiment, and change any kind of economic system, since it does not deny tha basics of anarchy. This means equal access to the conditions of existance, equal access to freedom.

- sufi@portugalmail.pt

:Greetings Sufi... there have been anarcho-capitalist supporters on this site. I think you are right saying that anarcho-capitalism does not support all individual rights ''per se'', being based on the non-aggression principle, rather than one of mutual assistance, actively supporting the rights of people. ~[[User:Rev 22|''Rev 22'']] 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To KropotkinInBlack

No we really don't care about how you "feel". This sight should care about informing people, allowing them to choose their own ideologies, without interference from the anarchy police like you. That is exactly what you are. Freedom of speech in a capitalist workplace? You do have freedom of speech, you just might get fired for it. You never have freedom of speech without consequences. A white man has the freedom to run up to a crowd of black people and yell nigger, but he's probably going to get smashed for it. But what you want to do is keep the speech from even being made. I think anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. People who say AxCapx is an oxymoron say that oppurtunity is different from freedom, or, results. What about the results of socialism? There has never been people with less freedom than those under a revolutionary socialist system. People will say that is not really what communism/socialism is supposed to be, but there is no way to implement what it is supposed to be. Am I gonna work if I ain't getting anything out of it? most of the time, no. Say we eliminate the market system. We'll end up trading necessities and services. I may not be able to call the police to get you off of the quarter acre that I decided was mine and worked to develop and make it useful, but I sure as hell can get you off with a few bullets. So see, capitalism will develop in anarchy either way.

What's more, other forms of anarchy are oxymorons too. Anarch"a"-Feminism? The whole reason men dominated women from the beginning was they are bigger and stronger. Animal liberation can't go with anarchy because well, that one is obvious. All forms of anarchy have some sort of contradiction to them. Anarcho-capitalism at least has a sustainable idea.

== introduction ==

Some APOV about this introduction :

*"Anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist libertarian view"
:if we change "capitalism" by "statism", "nationalism", "fascism" or others authoritarian object... can we say the same ? it is a strange POV which is enounced in this article... certainly not an APOV.

*"differs from anarchism on the matter of property rights"
:it's sure, anarchism reject wage labour and volountary slave.

*"Unlike Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism views the current capitalist system as a symptom of the state, which it defines as a monopoly on force"
:It is ridiculous. Anarchists views all the capitalist systems (in all forms, from privates to states) as needing authoritarian structures like national-states to private-states... the "anarcho"-capitalists want a private state which is enounced, from them, like a "defense agency" which has "a monopoly on force" on his properties. A state with "a monopoly on force" is a mean for "A"-C ; anarchists don't want/need authoritarians means, like states.

*"Anarcho-Capitalism embraces the free market which contrasts with traditional Anarchisms that have historically been opposed to market relationships"
:That's wrong.

*"It should be noted that Anarcho-Capitalists define the words "capitalism" and free market differently from classical Anarchists in favour of the Austrian economic definition of the words"
:To follow this sentence, then this anarchist project "anarchopedia" take the capitalist terminology basis ? Then, why '''Anarcho'''pedia ? the POV isn't anarchist here, it is capitalist !

*"This difference in terminology is often the basis for controversy"
:it is an excuse to make CapitalistPOV in here. what is the terminology problem to solve with others statists, nationalists, fascists, racists, etc for that they be anarchists ??? the terminology ???!!

*"Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist influenced by individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, is often thought of as the founder of modern anarcho-capitalism"
:were there first traditionnal anarcho-capitalism ? their influences except that tucker and spooner rejected wage labour.

In the [[fra:"anarcho"-capitalisme|french article on anarcho-capitalism]], the introduction is short :
:'''The "anarcho"-capitalism is a non-anarchist political theory, but liberal, wishing privatise State'''

hoping there's some anarchists here...

-- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''

== Flag doesn't exist ==

The yellow and black flag doesn't exist in the capitalist movement. we can suppress it. -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''
:well there's no reactions... i suppress it. -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]]'''

== solidarity needed at wikipedia! ==

(i post this here because it's an active page) comrades: the main editor of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery wage slavery at wikipedia] is a good social anarchist comrade who i won't name because i don't want to cause him trouble, but i believe you would know of him if i did name him. please don't name him here if you know who he is, please trust me on this, it will hurt the cause, but i can't explain how without hurting it myself. anyway the capitalists have now taken over the article LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO!!! (i am so furious i'm almost in tears! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN! they took over again! they even took down the wobblies poster which was there for years!!!) this was one of the few articles at wikipedia that portrayed the class struggle in a historically accurate light, solely because of this unnamed comrade who did his good work while staying below the capitalists' radar. but now they've spotted him and trumped up charges against him like they always do and i don't know what else to do but come here and request help! they are quickly twisting the article to their pov like all the rest and he will never get it back from them unless we all stand in solidarity with him and defend his edits! i am already blocked from wikipedia for similar trumped up charges but i will keep trying to get a new ip from my isp (i am using tor now so they won't know which wikipedia editor i am if they see this, and i know they will because i know they are here as well trying to take over). i'm sure you all know how to defend a comrade without raising suspicion. please do it now if you want to help save one of the last honest class struggle articles in capitalopedia! THANK YOU COMRADES!

== VoF ??? ==

What is the reason of the template of "voice of freedom" ? what can it give to the reader like me ? -- '''[[User:Libre|Libre]] 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)'''

== Message to all who come here and mess up this article with pro-capitalist bullshit, rtfm guys!!! ==

1. if someone thinks it is ok to delete or rewrite the criticism section in this article, s/he should think about that this is an anarchist encyclopedia, see:

[[Anarchopedia]]

2. if you reached to read the [[Anarchopedia]]-article, also read our standpoint about "anarcho-capitalism":

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/what_anarchism_is_not#Anarcho-capitalism

3. if you still think this is a platform for "anarcho-capitalists" or "free market anarchists" then you obviously cannot read or you just came here to destroy and vandalise this project!

Thus, if you are not able to respect our rules, search for another platform (mises.org), wiki (wikipedia) or whatever...

Ton Steine Scherben - Die letzte Schlacht gewinnen wir

2008-09-18T16:24:00Z

Eamr:

[[de:Ton_Steine_Scherben/Die_letzte_Schlacht_gewinnen_wir]]
*http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=SjsykmyR2O0

== Ton Steine Scherben ==
'''WE WIN THE LAST BATTLE! (Die letzte Schlacht gewinnen wir)'''

We need no house-owners, because the houses belong to us. <br/ >
We need no factory owners, the factories belong to us. <br/ >

Go out of the way, capitalists, we win the last battle! <br/ >
Policemen throw the gun away, <br/ >
the red front and the black front are here! <br/ >

We need no strong man, because we are strong enough. <br/ >
We ourselves know what is to be done, our head is big enough.<br/ >

Go out of the way, capitalists, the last battle we win! <br/ >
Policemen throw the gun away, <br/ >
the red front and the black front are here! <br/ >

Our struggle stands for peace and we fight against your war.<br/ >
Every battle we lose means our next victory.<br/ >

Go out of the way, capitalists, we win the last battle! <br/ >
Policemen throw the gun away, <br/ >
the red front and the black front are here!<br/ >

Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We win the last battle! <br/ >
We! We! We! We! <br/ >

[[Category:Song lyrics]]

User talk:RAAF

2008-08-11T23:52:21Z

Eamr:

==Crossed out swastika==
You're showing the hindu swastika, the nazi one is slanted. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 00:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:This is intentional - I fight whole nazism, even in its initial hindu form. Remember: RAAF - 100% ANTIFA! I do not tolerate even lightest form of nazism - no pasaran! [[User:RAAF|RAAF]] 10:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::No, no, the swastika is a hindu religious symbol, it has been for thousands of years. The nazis hijacked it because hindus are 'aryan.' It originally had nothing to do with racism. Apart from that, it is also used by jains and buddhists. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For me hindu things are a sort of proto-nazism. Proofs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva Remember: [[:Image:FNR.PNG|"FASCISM NATIONALISM RASISM on this shit far not ride"]] - no pasaran! [[User:RAAF|RAAF]] 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::::please delete this: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastyka --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Eamr

2008-08-10T18:09:11Z

Eamr: /* Template */

As you changed your status alone? [[User:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt|Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt]] 13:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it. Come to chat... ;-)

== Template ==

Do you have any idea how to create at least some citation templates, especially cite book template? Without it we cannot write a single article. --[[User:Cercopithecus|Cercopithecus]] 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
:No, I believe you mean "cheaply copy an article from wikipedia". One can easily write an article here.<ref>and the ref tag works here to</ref>[[User:Elassint|Elassint]]

<references/>
::True I imported the initial draft of ''some'' articles from wikipedia. It is good to start the initial stage in this way in articles which are complex in nature like State terrorism by US. I will write articles, give me some time, I will try to help my best. --[[User:Cercopithecus|Cercopithecus]] 10:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::As You like it... ;-) But I think Your Statement Pro-euthanasia is a fascistic ideology and what You called Marxism, I call it Bolshevism. Marxism is the criticism of capitalism based on Karl Marx and not the government of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I disagree "Pro-euthanasia is a fascistic ideology". Pro-euthanasia fascistic? You probably get mislead by the fact that fascist regimes and Nazi regime killed people with the excuse of "euthanasia", they abused the concept of euthanasia, you can say it was "forced euthanasia". But this has nothing to do with the original concept of euthanasia. Hitler supported animal rights, by that definition will animal liberation movement be fascistic? No. Animal rights activists, euthanasia activists are sometimes tied with the Nazis. This is called '''''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Reductio ad Hitlerum]'''''. And regarding the issue with Marxism, I am agree with you. But the remedy i.e. "dictatorship of the proletariat" was given by Marx which led to the establishment of the new bureaucracies replacing the old like the USSR, Cuba, PRC etc. I believe the concept "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the only flaw in Marxism. However I think it will be good to say anti-Marxist-Leninist, rather than anti-Marxist. --[[User:Cercopithecus|Cercopithecus]] 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think if You use the same logics like Nazis You have a mistake in Your requirements. And yes, parts of animal rights activists are also fascist. In my opinion fascist included also "democratic" civils who used a base where fascists can build their houses (like P. Singer in example). --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ok I see a translation-problem in English only exists one word for two things. In German we have "Sterbehilfe" (death-helping, my own wish) und "Euthansie" (foreign decision). The different is important because euthanasia is a tool/part of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics eugenics] ... --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Eamr

2008-08-10T17:40:17Z

Eamr:

As you changed your status alone? [[User:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt|Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt]] 13:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it. Come to chat... ;-)

== Template ==

Do you have any idea how to create at least some citation templates, especially cite book template? Without it we cannot write a single article. --[[User:Cercopithecus|Cercopithecus]] 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
:No, I believe you mean "cheaply copy an article from wikipedia". One can easily write an article here.<ref>and the ref tag works here to</ref>[[User:Elassint|Elassint]]

<references/>
::True I imported the initial draft of ''some'' articles from wikipedia. It is good to start the initial stage in this way in articles which are complex in nature like State terrorism by US. I will write articles, give me some time, I will try to help my best. --[[User:Cercopithecus|Cercopithecus]] 10:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::As You like it... ;-) But I think Your Statement Pro-euthanasia is a fascistic ideology and what You called Marxism, I call it Bolshevism. Marxism is the criticism of capitalism based on Karl Marx and not the government of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I disagree "Pro-euthanasia is a fascistic ideology". Pro-euthanasia fascistic? You probably get mislead by the fact that fascist regimes and Nazi regime killed people with the excuse of "euthanasia", they abused the concept of euthanasia, you can say it was "forced euthanasia". But this has nothing to do with the original concept of euthanasia. Hitler supported animal rights, by that definition will animal liberation movement be fascistic? No. Animal rights activists, euthanasia activists are sometimes tied with the Nazis. This is called '''''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Reductio ad Hitlerum]'''''. And regarding the issue with Marxism, I am agree with you. But the remedy i.e. "dictatorship of the proletariat" was given by Marx which led to the establishment of the new bureaucracies replacing the old like the USSR, Cuba, PRC etc. I believe the concept "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the only flaw in Marxism. However I think it will be good to say anti-Marxist-Leninist, rather than anti-Marxist. --[[User:Cercopithecus|Cercopithecus]] 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think if You use the same logics like Nazis You have a mistake in Your requirements. And yes, parts of animal rights activists are also fascist. In my opinion fascist included also "democratic" civils who used a base where fascists can build their houses (like P. Singer in example). --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ok I see a translation-problem in English only exists one word for two things. In German we have "Sterbehilfe" (death-helping, my own wish) und "Euthansie" (foreign decision) ... --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Eamr

2008-08-10T17:01:46Z

Eamr:

User talk:Eamr

2008-08-10T13:47:38Z

Eamr: /* Template */

libertarian municipalism

2008-07-24T21:19:07Z

Eamr:

==Libertarian Municipalism: The New Municipal Agenda by Murray Bookchin==

Any agenda that tries to restore and amplify the classical meaning of politics and citizenship must clearly indicate what they are not, if only because of the confusion that surrounds the two words. . . . Politics is not statecraft, and citizens are not "constituents" or "taxpayers." Statecraft consists of operations that engage the state: the exercise of its monopoly of violence, its control of the entire regulative apparatus of society in the form of legal and ordinance-making bodies, and its governance of society by means of professional legislators, armies, police forces, and bureaucracies. Statecraft takes on a political patina when so-called "political parties" attempt, in various power plays, to occupy the offices that make state policy and execute it. This kind of "politics" has an almost tedious typicality. A "political party" is normally a structured hierarchy, fleshed out by a membership that functions in a top-down manner. It is a miniature state, and in some countries, such as the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a party actually constituted the state itself.

The Soviet and Nazi examples of the party qua state were the logical extension of the party into the state. Indeed, every party has its roots in the state, not in the citizenry. The conventional party is hitched to the state like a garment to a mannikin. However varied the garment and its design may be, it is not part of the body politic; it merely drapes it. There is nothing authentically political about this phenomenon: it is meant precisely to contain the body politic, to control it and to manipulate it, not to express its will--or even permit it to develop a will. In no sense is a conventional "political" party derivative of the body politic or constituted by it. Leaving metaphors aside, "political" parties are replications of the state when they are out of power and are often synonymous with the state when they are in power. They are formed to mobilize, to command, to acquire power, and to rule. Thus they are as inorganic as the state itself--an excrescence of society that has no real roots in it, no responsiveness to it beyond the needs of faction, power, and mobilization.

Politics, by contrast, is an organic phenomenon. It is organic in the very real sense that it is the activity of a public body--a community, if you will--just as the process of flowering is an organic activity of a plant. Politics, conceived as an activity, involves rational discourse, public empowerment, the exercise of practical reason, and its realization in a shared, indeed participatory, activity. It is the sphere of societal life beyond the family and the personal needs of the individual that still retains the intimacy, involvement, and sense of responsibility enjoyed in private arenas of life. Groups may form to advance specific political views and programs, but these views and programs are no better than their capacity to answer to the needs of an active public body. . . .

By contrast, political movements, in their authentic sense, emerge out of the body politic itself, and although their programs are formulated by theorists, they also emerge from the lived experiences and traditions of the public itself. The populist movements that swept out of agrarian America and tsarist Russia or the anarcho-syndicalist and peasant movements of Spain and Mexico articulated deeply felt, albeit often unconscious, public desires and needs. At their best, genuine political movements bring to consciousness the subterranean aspirations of discontented people and eventually turn this consciousness into political cultures that give coherence to inchoate and formless public desires. . . .

The immediate goal of a libertarian municipalist agenda is not to exercise sudden and massive control by representatives and their bureaucratic agents over the existing economy; its immediate goal is to reopen a public sphere in flat opposition to statism, one that allows for maximum democracy in the literal sense of the term, and to create in embryonic form the institutions that can give power to a people generally. If this perspective can be initially achieved only by morally empowered assemblies on a limited scale, at least it will be a form of popular power that can, in time, expand locally and grow over wide regions. That its future is unforeseeable does not alter the fact that it development depends upon the growing consciousness of the people, not upon the growing power of the state--and how that consciousness, concretized in high democratic institutions, will develop may be an open issue but it will surely be a political adventure.

<hr>

. . . The recovery and development of politics must, I submit, take its point of departure from the citizen and his or her immediate environment beyond the familial and private arenas of life. There can be no politics without community. And by community I mean a municipal association of people reinforced by its own economic power, its own institutionalization of the grass roots, and the confederal support of nearby communities organized into a territorial network on a local and regional scale. Parties that do not intertwine with these grassroots forms of popular organization are not political in the classical sense of the term. In fact, they are bureaucratic and antithetical to the development of a participatory politics and participating citizens. The authentic unit of political life, in effect, is the municipality, whether as a whole, if it is humanly scaled, or in its various subdivisions, notably the neighborhood. . . .

A new political agenda can be a municipal agenda only if we are to take our commitments to democracy seriously. Otherwise we will be entangled with one or another variant of statecraft, a bureaucratic structure that is demonstrably inimicable to a vibrant public life. The living cell that forms the basic unit of political life is the municipality, from which everything--such as citizenship, interdependence, confederation, and freedom--emerges. There is no way to piece together any politics unless we begin with its most elementary forms: the villages, towns, neighborhoods, and cities in which people live on the most intimate level of political interdependence beyond private life. It is on this level that they can begin to gain a familiarity with the political process, a process that involves a good deal more than voting and information. It is on this level, too, that they can go beyond the private insularity of family life--a life that is currently celebrated for its inwardness and seclusion--and improvise those public institutions that make for broad community participation and consociation.

In short, it is through the municipality that people can reconstitute themselves from isolated monads into an innovative body politic and create an existentially vital, indeed protoplasmic civic life that has continuity and institutional form as well as civic content. I refer here to the block organizations, neighborhood assemblies, town meetings, civic confederations, and the public arenas for discourse that go beyond such episodic, single-issue demonstrations and campaigns, valuable as they may be to redress to redress social injustices. But protest alone is not enough; indeed, it is usually defined by what protestors oppose, not by the social changes they may wish to institute. To ignore the irreducible civic unit of politics and democracy is to play chess without a chessboard, for it is on this civic plane that the long-range endeavor of social renewal must eventually be played out. . . .

<hr>

All statist objections aside, the problem of restoring municipal assemblies seems formidable if it is cast in strictly structural and spatial terms. New York City and London have no way of "assembling" if they try to emulate ancient Athens, with its comparatively small citizen body. Both cities, in fact, are no longer cities in the classical sense of the term and hardly rate as municipalities even by nineteenth-century standards of urbanism. Viewed in strictly macroscopic terms, they are sprawling urban belts that suck up millions of people daily from communities at a substantial distance from their commercial centers.

But they are also made up of neighborhoods--that is to say, of smaller communities that have a certain measure of identity, whether defined by a shared cultural heritage, economic interests, a commonality of social views, or even an aesthetic tradition such as Greenwich Village in New York or Camden Town in London. However much their administration as logistical, sanitary, and commercial artifacts requires a high degree of coordination by experts and their aides, they are potentially open to political and, in time, physical decentralization. Popular, even block assemblies can be formed irrespective of the size of a city, provided its cultural components are identified and their uniqueness fostered.

At the same time I should emphasize that the libertarian municipalist (or equivalently, communalist) views I propound here are meant to be a changing and formative perspective--a concept of politics and citizenship to ultimately transform cities and urban megalopolises ethically as well as spatially, and politically as well as economically. Insofar as these views gain public acceptance, they can be expected not only to enlarge their vision and embrace confederations of neighborhoods but also to advance a goal of physically decentralizing urban centers. To the extent that mere electoral "constituents" are transformed by education and experience into active citizens, the issue of humanly scaled communities can hardly be avoided as the "next step" toward a stable and viable form of city life. It would be foolhardy to try to predict in any detail a series of such "next steps" or the pace at which they will occur. Suffice it to say that as a perspective, libertarian municipalism is meant to be an ever-developing, creative, and reconstructive agenda as well as an alternative to the centralized nation-state and to an economy based on profit, competition, and mindless growth.

Minimally then, attempts to initiate assemblies can begin with populations that range anywhere from a modest residential neighborhood to a dozen neighborhoods or more. They can be coordinated by strictly mandated delegates who are rotatable, recallable, and above all, rigorously instructed in written form to either support or oppose whatever issue that appears on the agenda of local confederal councils composed of delegates from several neighborhood assemblies.

There is no mystery involved in this form of organization. The historical evidence for their efficacy and their continual reappearance in times of rapid social change is considerable and persuasive. The Parisian sections of 1793, despite the size of Paris (between 500,000 and 600,000) and the logistical difficulties of the era (a time when nothing moved faster than a horse) functioned with a great deal of success on their own, coordinated by sectional delegates in the Paris Commune. They were notable not only for their effectiveness in dealing with political issues based on a face-to-face democratic structure; they also played a major role in provisioning the city, in preventing the hoarding of food, and in suppressing speculation, supervising the maximum for fixed prices, and carrying out many other complex administrative tasks. Thus, from a minimal standpoint, no city need be considered so large that popular assemblies cannot start, least of all one that has definable neighborhoods that might interlink with each other on ever-broader confederations.

The real difficulty is largely administrative: how to provide for the material amenities of city life, support complex logistical and traffic burdens, or maintain a sanitary environment. This issue is often obscured by a serious confusion between the formulation of policy and its administration. For a community to decide in a participatory manner what specific course of action it should take in dealing with a technical problem does not oblige all its citizens to execute that policy. The decision to build a road, for example, does not mean that everyone must know how to design and construct one. That is a job for engineers, who can offer alternative designs--a very important political function of experts, to be sure, but one whose soundness the people in assembly can be free to decide. To design and construct a road is strictly an administrative responsibility, albeit one that always open to public scrutiny.

If the distinction between policy making and administration is kept clearly in mind, the role of popular assemblies and the people who administer their decisions easily distinguishes logistical problems from political ones, which are ordinarily entangled with each other in discussions on decentralistic politics. Superficially, the assembly system is "referendum" politics: it is based on a "social contract" to share decision making with the population at large, and abide by the rule of the majority in dealing with problems that confront a municipality, a regional confederation of municipalities, or for that matter, a national entity. . . .

<hr>

That a municipality can be as parochial as a tribe is fairly obvious--and is no less true today than it has been in the past. Hence any municipal movement that is not confederal--that is to say, that does not enter into a network of mutual obligations to towns and cities in its own region--can no more be regarded as a truly political entity in any traditional sense than a neighborhood that does not work with other neighborhoods in the city in which it is located. Confederation--based on shared responsibilities, full accountability of confederal delegates to their communities, the right to recall, and firmly mandated representatives--forms an indispensable part of a new politics. To demand that existing towns and cities replicate the nation-state on a local level is to surrender any commitment to social change as such. . . .

What is confederalism as conceived in the libertarian municipalist framework, and as it would function in a free ecological society? It would above all be a network of councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies, in the various villages, towns, and even neighborhoods of large cities. These confederal councils would become the means for interlinking villages, towns, neighborhoods, and cities into confederal networks. Power thus would flow from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and in confederations the flow of power from the bottom up would diminish with the scope of the federal council, ranging territorially from localities to regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas.

The members of these confederal councils would be strictly mandated, recallable, and responsible to the assemblies that choose them for the purpose of coordinating and administering the policies formulated by the assemblies themselves. The functions of the councils would be purely administrative and practical, unlike representatives in republican systems of government, who have policy-making powers. Indeed, the confederation would make the same distinction that is made on the municipal level, between policy-making and administration. Policy-making would remain exclusively the right of the popular community assemblies based on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration--the coordination and execution of adopted policies--would be the responsibility of the confederal councils. Wherever policy-making slips from the hands of the people, it is devoured by its delegates, who quickly become bureaucrats.

A crucial element in giving reality to confederalism is the interdependence of communities for an authentic mutualism based on shared resources, produce, and policy-making. While a reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is desirable for each locality and region, confederalism is a means for avoiding local parochialism on the one hand and an extravagant national and global division of labor on the other. Unless a community is obliged to count on others generally to satisfy important material needs and realize common political goals, interlinking it to a greater whole, exclusivity and parochialism become a genuine possibilities. Only insofar as confederation is an extension of participatory administration--by means of confederal networks--can decentralization and localism prevent the communities that compose larger bodies of association from parochially withdrawing into themselves at the expense of wider areas of human consociation.

Confederalism is thus a way of perpetuating interdependence among communities and regions--indeed, it is a way of democratizing that interdependence without surrendering the principle of local control. Through confederation, a community can retain its identity and roundedness while participating in a sharing way with the larger whole that makes up a balanced ecological society. . . .

Thus libertarian municipalism is not an effort simply to "take over" city councils to construct a more "environmentally friendly" city government. These adherents--or opponents--of libertarian municipalism, in effect, look at the civic structures that exist before their eyes now and essentially (all rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding) take them as they exist. Libertarian municipalism, by contrast, is an effort to transform and democratize city governments, to root them in popular assemblies, to knit them together along confederal lines, to appropriate a regional economy along confederal and municipal lines.

In fact, libertarian municipalism gains its life and its integrity precisely from the dialectical tension it proposes between the nation-state and the municipal confederation. Its "law of life," to use an old Marxian term, consists precisely in its struggle with the State. Then tension between municipal confederations and the State must be clear and uncompromising. Since these confederations would exist primarily in opposition to statecraft, they cannot be compromised by the State, provincial or national elections, much less achieved by these means. Libertarian municipalism is formed by its struggle with the State, strengthened by this struggle, indeed, defined by this struggle. Divested of this dialectical tension with the State, of this duality of power that must ultimately be actualized in a free "Commune of communes," libertarian municipalism becomes little more than sewer socialism.

<hr> Why is the assembly crucial to self-governance? Is it not enough to use the referendum, as the Swiss do today, and resolve the problem of democratic procedure in a simple and seemingly uncomplicated way? Why can't policy decisions be made electronically at home--as "Third Wave" enthusiasts have suggested--by "autonomous" individuals, each listening to debates and voting in the privacy of his or her home?

A number of vital issues, involving the nature of citizenship and the recovery of an enhanced classical vision of politics, must be considered in answering these questions. The "autonomous" individual qua "voter" who, in liberal theory, forms the irreducible unit of the referendum process is a fiction. Left to his or her own private destiny in the name of "autonomy" and "independence," the individual becomes an isolated being whose very freedom is denuded of the living social and political matrix from which his or her individuality acquires its flesh and blood. . . . The notion of independence, which is often confused with independent thinking and freedom, has been so marbled by pure bourgeois egoism that we tend to forget that our individuality depends heavily on community support systems and solidarity. It is not by childishly subordinating ourselves to the community on the one hand or by detaching ourselves from it on the other that we become mature human beings. What distinguishes us as social beings, hopefully with rational institutions, from solitary beings who lack any serious affiliations, is our capacities for solidarity with one another, for mutually enhancing our self-development and creativity and attaining freedom within a socially creative and institutionally rich collectivity.

"Citizenship" apart from community can be as debasing to our political selfhood as "citizenship" in a totalitarian state. In both cases, we are thrust back to the condition of dependence that characterizes infancy and childhood. We are rendered dangerously vulnerable to manipulation, whether by powerful personalities in private life or by the state and by corporations in economic life. In neither case do we attain individuality or community. Both, in fact, are dissolved by removing the communal ground on which genuine individuality depends. Rather, it is interdependence within an institutionally rich and rounded community--which no electronic media can produce--that fleshes out the individual with the rationality, solidarity, sense of justice, and ultimately the reality of freedom that makes for a creative and concerned citizen.

Paradoxical as it may seem, the authentic elements of a rational and free society are communal, not individual. Conceived in more institutional terms, the municipality is not only the basis for a free society; it is the irreducible ground for genuine individuality as well. The significance of the municipality is all the greater because it constitutes the discursive arena in which people can intellectually and emotionally confront one another, indeed, experience one another through dialogue, body language, personal intimacy, and face-to-face modes of expression in the course of making collective decisions. I speak, here, of the all-important process of communizing, of the ongoing intercourse of many levels of life, that makes for solidarity, not only the "neighborliness" so indispensable for truly organic interpersonal relationships.

The referendum, conducted in the privacy of one's voting booth or, as some "Third Wave" enthusiasts would have it, in the electronic isolation of one's home, privatizes democracy and thereby subverts it. Voting, like registering one's preferences for a particular soap or detergent in a opinion poll, is the total quantification of citizenship, politics, individuality, and the very formation of ideas as a mutually informative process. The mere vote reflects a preformulated "percentage" of our perceptions and values, not their full expression. It is the technical debasing of views into mere preferences, of ideals into mere taste, of overall comprehension into quantification such that human aspirations and beliefs can be reduced to numerical digits.

Finally, the "autonomous individual," lacking any community context, support systems, and organic intercourse, is disengaged from the character-building process--the paideia--that the ancient Athenians assigned to politics as one of its most important educational functions. True citizenship and politics entail the ongoing formation of personality, education, and a growing sense of public responsibility and commitment that render communizing and an active body politic meaningful, indeed that give it existential substance. It is not in the privacy of the school, any more than in the privacy of the voting booth, that these vital personal and political attributes are formed. They require a public presence, embodied by vocal and thinking individuals, a responsive and discursive public sphere, to achieve reality. "Patriotism," as the etymology of the word indicates, is the nation-state's conception of the citizen as a child, the obedient creature of the nation-state conceived as a paterfamilias or stern father, who orchestrates belief and commands devotion. To the extent that we are the "sons" and "daughters" of a "fatherland," we place ourselves in an infantile relationship to the state.

Solidarity or philia, by contrast, implies a sense of commitment. It is created by knowledge, training, experience, and reason--in short, by a political education developed during the course of political participation. Philia is the result of the educational and self-formative process that paedeia is meant to achieve. In the absence of a humanly scaled, comprehensible, and institutionally accessible municipality, this all-important function of politics and its embodiment in citizenship is simply impossible to achieve. In the absence of philia or the means to create it, we gauge "political involvement" by the "percentage" of "voters" who "participate" in the "political process"--a degradation of words that totally denatures their authentic meaning and eviscerates their ethical content. . . .

<hr>

Be they large or small, the initial assemblies and the movement that seeks to foster them in civic elections remain the only real school for citizenship we have. There is no civic "curriculum" other than a living and creative political realm that can give rise to people who take management of public affairs seriously. What we must clearly do in an era of commodification, rivalry, anomie, and egoism is to consciously create a public sphere that will inculcate the values of humanism, cooperation, community, and public service in the everyday practice of civic life. Grassroots citizenship goes hand in hand with grassroots politics.

The Athenian polis, for all its many shortcomings, offers us remarkable examples of how a high sense of citizenship can be reinforced not only by systematic education but by an etiquette of civic behavior and an artistic culture that adorns ideals of civic service with the realities of civic practice. Deference to opponents in debates, the use of language to achieve consensus, ongoing public discussion in the agora in which even the most prominent of the polis's figures were expected to debate public issues with the least known, the use of wealth not only to meet personal needs but to adorn the polis itself (thus placing a high premium on the disaccumulation rather than the accumulation of wealth), a multitude of public festivals, dramas, and satires largely centered on civic affairs and the need to foster civic solidarity--all of these and many other aspects of Athens's political culture created the civic solidarity and responsibility that made for actively involved citizens with a deep sense of civic mission.

For our part, we can do no less--and hopefully, in time, considerably more. The development of citizenship must become an art, not merely an education--and a creative art in the aesthetic sense that appeals to the deeply human desire for self-expression in a meaningful political community. It must be a personal art in which every citizen is fully aware of the fact that his or her community entrusts its destiny to his or her moral probity and rationality. If the ideological authority of state power and statecraft today rests on the assumption that the "citizen" is an incompetent being, the municipalist conception of citizenship rests on precisely the opposite. Every citizen would be regarded as competent to participate directly in the "affairs of state"--indeed, what is more important, he or she would be encouraged to do so.

Every means would be provided, whether aesthetic or institutional, to foster participation in full as an educative and ethical process that turns the citizen's latent competence into an actual reality. Social and political life would be consciously orchestrated to foster a profound sensitivity, indeed an active sense of concern for the adjudication of differences without denying the need for vigorous dispute when it is needed. Public service would be seen as a uniquely human attribute, not a "gift" that a citizen confers on the community or an onerous task that he or she must fulfill. Cooperation and civic responsibility would become expressions of acts of sociability and philia, not ordinances that the citizen is expected to honor in the breach and evade where he or she can do so.

Put bluntly and clearly, the municipality would become a theater in which life in its most meaningful public form is the plot, a political drama whose grandeur imparts nobility and grandeur to the citizenry that forms the cast. By contrast, our modern cities have become in large part agglomerations of bedroom apartments in which men and women spiritually wither away and their personalities become trivialized by the petty concerns of amusement, consumption, and small talk.

<hr>

The last and one of the most intractable problems we face is economic. Today, economic issues tend to center on "who owns what," "who owns more than whom," and, above all, how disparities in wealth are to be reconciled with a sense of civic commonality. Nearly all municipalities have been fragmented by differences in economic status, pitting poor, middle, and wealthy classes against each other often to the ruin of municipal freedom itself, as the bloody history of Italy's medieval and Renaissance cities so clearly demonstrates.

These problems have not disappeared in recent times. Indeed, in many cases they are as severe as they have ever been. But what is unique about our own time--a fact so little understood by many liberals and radicals in North America and Europe--is that entirely new transclass issues have emerged that concern environment, growth, transportation, cultural degradation, and the quality of urban life generally--issues that have been produced by urbanization, not by citification. Cutting across conflicting class interests are such transclass issues as the massive dangers of thermonuclear war, growing state authoritarianism, and ultimately global ecological breakdown. To an extent unparalleled in American history, an enormous variety of citizens' groups have brought people of all class backgrounds into common projects around problems, often very local in character, that concern the destiny and welfare of their community as a whole.

Issues such as the siting of nuclear reactors or nuclear waste dumps, the dangers of acid rain, and the presence of toxic dumps, to cite only a few of the many problems that beleaguer innumerable American and British municipalities, have united an astonishing variety of people into movements with shared concerns that render a ritualistic class analysis of their motives a matter of secondary importance. Carried still further, the absorption of small communities by larger ones, of cities by urban belts, and urban belts by "standard metropolitan statistical areas" or conurbations has given rise to militant demands for communal integrity and self-government, an issue that surmounts strictly class and economic interests. The literature on the emergence of these transclass movements, so secondary to internecine struggles within cities of earlier times, is so immense that to merely list the sources would require a sizable volume.

I have given this brief overview of an emerging general social interest over old particularistic interests to demonstrate that a new politics could easily come into being--indeed one that would be concerned not only with restructuring the political landscape on a municipal level but the economic landscape as well. The old debates between "private property" and "nationalized property," are becoming threadbare. Not that these different kinds of ownership and the forms of exploitation they imply have disappeared; rather, they are being increasingly overshadowed by new realities and concerns. Private property, in the traditional sense, with its case for perpetuating the citizen as an economically self-sufficient and politically self-empowered individual, is fading away. It is disappearing not because "creeping socialism" is devouring "free enterprise" but because "creeping corporatism" is devouring everyone--ironically, in the name of "free enterprise." The Greek ideal of the politically sovereign citizen who can make a rational judgment in public affairs because he is free from material need or clientage has been reduced to a mockery. The oligarchical character of economic life threatens democracy, such as it is, not only on a national level but also on a municipal level, where it still preserves a certain degree of intimacy and leeway.

We come here to a breakthrough approach to a municipalist economics that innovatively dissolves the mystical aura surrounding corporatized property and nationalized property, indeed workplace elitism and "workplace democracy." I refer to the municipalization of property, as opposed to its corporatization or its nationalization. . . . Libertarian municipalism proposes that land and enterprises be placed increasingly in the custody of the community--more precisely, the custody of citizens in free assemblies and their deputies in confederal councils. . . . In such a municipal economy--confederal, interdependent, and rational by ecological, not simply technological, standards--we would expect that the special interests that divide people today into workers, professionals, managers, and the like would be melded into a general interest in which people see themselves as citizens guided strictly by the needs of their community and region rather than by personal proclivities and vocational concerns. Here, citizenship would come into its own, and rational as well as ecological interpretations of the public good would supplant class and hierarchical interests.

As for the workplace, public democracy would be substituted for the traditional images of productive management and operation, "economic democracy" and "economic collectivization." Significantly, "economic democracy" in the workplace is no longer incompatible with a corporatized or nationalized economy. Quite to the contrary: the effective use of "workers' participation" in production, even the outright handing over of industrial operations to the workers who perform them, has become another form of time-studied, assembly-line rationalization, another systematic abuse of labor, by bringing labor itself into complicity with its own exploitation.

Many workers, in fact, would like to get away from their workplaces and find more creative types of work, not simply participate in planning their own misery. What "economic democracy" meant in its profoundest sense was free, democratic access to the means of life, the guarantee of freedom from material want--not simply the involvement of workers in onerous productive activities that could better be turned over to machines. It is a blatant bourgeois trick, in which many radicals unknowingly participate, that "economic democracy" has been reinterpreted to mean "employee ownership" or that "workplace democracy" has come to mean workers' "participation" in industrial management rather than freedom from the tyranny of the factory, rationalized labor, and planned production.

A municipal politics, based on communalist principles, scores a significant advance over all of these conceptions by calling for the municipalization of the economy--and its management by the community as part of a politics of self-management. Syndicalist demands for the "collectivization" of industry and "workers' control" of individual industrial units are based on contractual and exchange relationships between all collectivized enterprises, thereby indirectly reprivatizing the economy and opening it to traditional forms of private property--even if each enterprise is collectively owned. By contrast, libertarian municipalism literally politicizes the economy by dissolving economic decision-making into the civic domain. Neither factory nor land becomes a separate or potentially competitive unit within a seemingly communal collective.

Nor do workers, farmers, technicians, engineers, professionals, and the like perpetuate their vocational identities as separate interests that exist apart from the citizen body in face-to-face assemblies. "Property" is integrated into the municipality as the material component of a civic framework, indeed as part of a larger whole that is controlled by the citizen body in assembly as citizens--not as workers, farmers, professionals, or any other vocationally oriented special-interest groups.

What is equally important, the famous "contradiction" or "antagonism" between town and country, so crucial in social theory and history, is transcended by the township, the traditional New England jurisdiction, in which an urban entity is the nucleus of its agricultural and village environs--not a domineering urban entity that stands opposed to them. A township, in effect, is a small region within still larger ones, such as the county and larger political jurisdictions.

So conceived, the municipalization of the economy should be distinguished not only from corporatization but also from seemingly more "radical" demands such as nationalization and collectivization. Nationalization of the economy invariably has led to bureaucratic and top-down economic control; collectivization, in turn, could easily lead to a privatized economy in a collectivized form with the perpetuation of class or caste identities. By contrast, municipalization would bring the economy as a whole into the orbit of the public sphere, where economic policy could be formulated by the entire community--notably its citizens in face-to-face relationships working to achieve a general interest that surmounts separate, vocationally defined specific interests. The economy would cease to be merely an economy in the conventional sense of the term, composed of capitalistic, nationalized, or "worker-controlled" enterprises. It would become the economy of the polis or the municipality. The municipality, more precisely, the citizen body in face-to-face assembly, would absorb the economy into its public business, divesting it of a separate identity that can become privatized into a self-serving enterprise.

<hr>

. . . The municipalization of the economy would not only absorb the vocational differences that could militate against a publicly controlled economy; it would also absorb the material means of life into communal forms of distribution. "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs"--the famous demand of various nineteenth-century socialisms--would be institutionalized as part of the public sphere. This traditional maxim, which is meant to assure that people will have access to the means of life irrespective of the work they are capable of performing, would cease to be merely a precarious credo: it would become a practice, a way of functioning politically--one that is structurally built into the community as a way of existing as a political entity.

Moreover, the enormous growth of the productive forces, rationally and ecologically employed for social rather than private ends, has rendered the age-old problem of material scarcity a moot issue. Potentially, all the basic means for living in comfort and security are available to the populations of the world, notwithstanding the dire--and often fallacious--claims of present-day misanthropes and antihumanists such as Garrett Hardin, Paul Ehrlich, and regrettably, advocates of "simple living," who can barely be parted from their computers even as they deride technological developments of almost any kind. It is easily forgotten that only a few generations ago, famine was no less a plague than deadly infectious diseases like the Black Death, and that the life-span of most people at the turn of the last century in the United States and Europe seldom reached fifty years of age.

No community can hope to achieve economic autarky, nor should it try to do so. Economically, the wide range of resources that are needed to make many of our widely used goods preclude self-enclosed insularity and parochialism. Far from being a liability, this interdependence among communities and regions can well be regarded as an asset--culturally as well as politically. Interdependence among communities is no less important than interdependence among individuals. Divested of the cultural cross-fertilization that is often a product of economic intercourse, the municipality tends to shrink into itself and disappear into its own civic privatism. Shared needs and resources imply the existence of sharing and, with sharing, communication, rejuvenation by new ideas, and a wider social horizon that yields a wider sensibility to new experiences.

The recent emphasis in environmental theory on "self-sufficiency," if it does not mean a greater degree of prudence in dealing with material resources, is regressive. Localism should never be interpreted to mean parochialism; nor should decentralism ever be interpreted to mean that smallness is a virtue in itself. Small is not necessarily beautiful. The concept of human scale, by far the more preferable expression for a truly ecological policy, is meant to make it possible for people to completely grasp their political environment, not to parochially bury themselves in it to the exclusion of cultural stimuli from outside their community's boundaries.

Given these coordinates, it is possible to envision a new political culture with a new revival of citizenship, popular civic institutions, a new kind of economy, and a countervailing dual power, confederally networked, that could arrest and hopefully reverse the growing centralization of the state and corporate enterprises. Moreover, it is also possible to envision an eminently practical point of departure for going beyond the town and city as we have known them up to now and for developing future forms of habitation as communities that seek to achieve a new harmonization between people and between humanity and the natural world. I have emphasized its practicality because it is now clear that any attempt to tailor a human community to a natural "ecosystem" in which it is located cuts completely against the grain of centralized power, be it state or corporate. Centralized power invariably reproduces itself in centralized forms at all levels of social, political, and economic life. It not only is big; it thinks big. Indeed, this way of being and thinking is a condition for its survival, not only its growth.

<hr>

As for the technological bases for decentralized communities, we are now witnessing a revolution that would have seemed hopelessly utopian only a few decades ago. Until recently, smaller-scale ecotechnologies were used mainly by individuals, and their efficiency barely compared with that of conventional energy sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear power plants. This situation has changed dramatically in the past fifteen to twenty years. In the United States, wind turbines have been developed and are currently in use that generate electric power at a cost of 7 to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 20 cents only a decade earlier. This figure is very close to the 4-to-6-cent cost of power plants fueled by natural gas or coal. These comparisons, which can be expected to improve in favor of wind power in the years to come, have fostered the expansion of this nonfossil-fuel source throughout the entire world, particularly in India, where there has been "a major wind boom" in 1994, according to the Worldwatch Institute.<A HREF="#1"><SUP><SMALL>1</SMALL></SUP></A>

A similar "boom" seems to be in the making in a variety of solar power devices. New solar collectors have been designed that increasingly approximate the costs of conventional energy sources, particularly in heating water for domestic uses. Photovoltaic cells, in which silicon is used to convert solar energy into electrons, have been developed to a point where "thousands of villagers in the developing world [are] using photovoltaic cells to power lights, televisions, and water pumps, needs that are otherwise met with kerosene lamps, lead-acid batteries, or diesel engines." In fact, more than 200,000 homes in Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, and some 2,000 in the Dominican Republic have been "solarized," probably with a good many more to come.<A HREF="#2"><SUP><SMALL>2</SMALL></SUP></A> It can be said with reasonable confidence that this increasingly sophisticated technology will become one of the most important--if not the most important--sources of electrical energy in the years to come, yet one that is eminently suitable for humanly scaled communities.

To view technological advances as intrinsically harmful, particularly nonpolluting sources of energy and automated machinery that can free human beings of mindless toil in a rational society, is as shortsighted as it is arrogant. Understandably, people today will not accept a diet of pious moral platitudes that call for "simple means" that presumably will give them "rich ends," whatever these may be, especially if these platitudes are delivered by well-paid academics and privileged Euro-Americans who have no serious quarrel with the present social order apart from whether it affords them access to "wilderness" theme parks.

For the majority of humanity, toil and needless shortages of food are an everyday reality. To expect them to become active citizens in a vital political, ecologically oriented community while engaging in arduous work for most of their lives, often on empty bellies, is an unfeeling middle-class presumption. Unless they can enjoy a decent sufficiency in the means of life and freedom from mindless, often involuntary toil, it is the height of arrogance to degrade their humanity by calling them "mouths," as many demographers do, or "consumers," as certain very comfortable environmentalists do.

Indeed, it is the height of elitism and privilege to deny them the opportunity and the means for choosing the kind of lifeways they want to pursue. Nor have the well-to-do strata of Euro-American society deprived themselves of that very freedom of choice--a choice, in fact, that they take for granted as a matter of course. Without fostering promising advances in technology that can free humanity as a whole from its subservience to the present, irrational--and, let me emphasize, anti-ecological--social order, we will almost certainly never achieve the free society whose existence is a precondition for harmony between human and human and between humanity and the natural world.

<hr>

Which is not to say that we can ignore the need for a visionary ethical ideal. Ironically, it has been the Right's shrewd emphasis on ethics and matters of spirit in an increasingly meaningless world that has given it a considerable edge over the forces of progress. Nazism achieved much of its success among the German people a half century ago not because of any economic panaceas it offered but because of its mythic ideal of nationhood, community, and moral regeneration. In recent times, reactionary movements in America have won millions to their cause on such values as the integrity of the family, religious belief, the renewal of patriotism, and the right to life--a message, I may add, that has been construed not only as a justification for anti-abortion legislation but as a hypostatization of the individual's sacredness, unborn as well as born.

Characteristically, liberal and radical causes are still mired in exclusively economistic and productivistic approaches to political issues. Their moral message, once a heightened plea for social justice, has given way increasingly to strictly material demands. Far more than the Right, which practices egoism and class war against the poor even as it emphasizes community virtues, the political middle ground and the Left take up the eminently practical issue of bread on the table and money in the bank but offer few values that are socially inspirational. Having emphasized the need to resolve the problems of material scarcity, it is equally necessary to emphasize the need to address the moral emptiness that a market society produces among large numbers of people today.

Morality and ethics, let me add, cannot be reduced to mere rhetoric to match the claims of reactionaries but must be the felt spiritual underpinnings of a new social outlook. They must be viewed not as a patronizing sermon but as a living practice that people can incorporate into their personal lives and their communities. The vacuity and triviality of life today must be replaced precisely by radical ideals of solidarity and freedom that sustain the human side of life as well as its material side, or else the ideals by which a rational future should be guided will disappear in the commodity-oriented world we call the "marketplace of ideas."

The most indecent aspect of this "marketplace" is that ideals tend to become artifacts--mere commodities--that lack even the value of the material things we need to sustain us. They become the ideological ornaments to garnish an inherently antihuman and anti-ecological society, one that threatens to undermine moral integrity as such and the simple social amenities that foster human intercourse.

Thus a municipal agenda that is meant to countervail urbanization and the nation-state must be more than a mere electoral platform, such as we expect from conventional parties. It must also be a message, comparable to the great manifestos advanced by various socialist movements in the last century, which called for moral as well as material and institutional reconstruction. Today's electoral platforms, whether "green" or "red," radical or liberal, are generally shopping lists of demands, precisely suited for that "marketplace of ideas" we have misnamed "politics."

Nor can a municipal agenda be a means for effacing serious differences in outlook. The need for thinking out ideas and struggling vigorously to give them coherence, which alone renders an agenda for a new municipal politics intelligible, is often sacrificed to ideological confusion in the name of achieving a specious "unity." A cranky pluralism is replacing an appreciation of focused thinking; a shallow relativism is replacing a sense of continuity and meaningful values; a confused eclecticism is replacing wholeness, clarity, and consistency. Many promising movements for basic social change in the recent past were plagued by a pluralism in which totally contradictory views were never worked out or followed to their logical conclusions, a problem that has grown even worse today due to the cultural illiteracy that plagues contemporary society. . . .

<hr>

A serious political movement that seeks to advance a libertarian municipalist agenda, in turn, must be patient--just as the Russian populists of the last century (one of whom is cited in the dedication to this book) were. The 1960s upsurge, with all its generous ideals, fell apart because young radicals demanded immediate gratification and sensational successes. The protracted efforts that are so direly needed for building a serious movement--perhaps one whose goals cannot be realized within a single lifetime--were woefully absent. Many of the radicals of thirty years ago, burning with fervor for fundamental change, have since withdrawn into the university system they once denounced, the parliamentary positions they formerly disdained, and the business enterprises they furiously attacked.

A libertarian municipalist movement, in particular, would not--and should not--achieve sudden success and wide public accolades. The present period of political malaise at best and outright reaction at worst renders any sensational successes impossible. If such a libertarian municipalist movement runs candidate for municipal councils with demands for the institution of public assemblies, it will more likely lose electoral races today rather than win even slight successes. Depending upon the political climate at any give time or place, years may pass before it wins even the most modest success.

In any very real sense, however, this protracted development is a desideratum. With rapid success, many naÃ¯ve members of a municipal electorate expect rapid changes--which no minority, however substantial, can ever hope to achieve at once. For an unpredictable amount of time, electoral activity will primarily be an educational activity, an endeavor to enter the public sphere, however small and contained it may be on the local level, and to educate and interact with ever larger numbers of people.

Even where a measure of electoral success on the local level can be achieved, the prospect of implementing a radically democratic policy is likely to be obstructed by the opposition of the nation-state and the weak position of municipalities in modern "democratic" nation-states. Although it is highly doubtful that even civic authorities would allow a neighborhood assembly to acquire the legal power to make civic policy, still less state and national authorities, let me emphasize that assemblies that have no legal power can exercise enormous moral power. A popular assembly that sternly voices its views on many issues can cause considerable disquiet among local authorities and generate a widespread public reaction in its favor over a large region, indeed even on a national scale.

An interesting case in point is the nuclear freeze resolution that was adopted by more than a hundred town meetings in Vermont a decade ago. Not only did this resolution resonate throughout the entire United States, leading to ad hoc "town meetings" in regions of the country that had never seen them, it affected national policy on this issue and culminated in a demonstration of approximately a million people in New York City. Yet none of the town meetings had the "legal" authority to enforce a nuclear freeze, nor did the issue fall within the purview of a typical New England town meeting's agenda. Historically, in fact, few civic projects that resemble libertarian municipalism began with a view toward establishing a radical democracy of any sort.

The forty-eight Parisian sections of 1793 actually derived from the sixty Parisian electoral districts of 1789. These districts were initially established through a complicated process (deliberately designed to exclude the poorer people of Paris) to choose the Parisian members of the Third Estate when the king convoked the Estates General at Versailles. Thereafter the districts, having chosen their deputies, were expected to disband. In fact, the sixty districts refused to desist from meeting regularly, despite their lack of legal status, and a year later became an integral part of the city's government. With the radicalization of the French Revolution, the fearful city and national authorities tried to weaken the power of the districts by reducing their number of forty-eight--hence, the mutation of the old districts into sections. Finally, the sections opened their doors to everyone, some including women, without any property or status qualifications. This most radical of civic structures, which produced the most democratic assemblies theretofore seen in history, thus slowly elbowed its way into authority, initially without any legal authority whatever and in flat defiance of the nation-state. For all their limitations, the Parisian sections remain an abiding example of how a seemingly nonlegal assembly system can be transformed into a network of revolutionary popular institutions around which a new society can be structured. . . .

What is of immense practical importance is that prestatist institutions, traditions, and sentiments remain alive in varying degrees throughout most of the world. Resistance to the encroachment of oppressive states has been nourished by village, neighborhood, and town community networks, witness such struggles in South Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. The tremors that are now shaking Soviet Russia are due not solely to demands for greater freedom but to movements for regional and local autonomy that challenge its very existence as a centralized nation-state. To ignore the communal basis of this movement would be as myopic as to ignore the latent instability of every nation-state; worse would be to take the nation-state as it is for granted and deal with it merely on its own terms. Indeed, whether a state remains "more" of a state or "less"--no trifling matter to radical theorists as disparate as Bakunin and Marx--depends heavily upon the power of local, confederal, and community movements to countervail it and hopefully to establish a dual power that will replace it. The major role that the Madrid Citizens' Movement played nearly three decades ago in weakening the Franco regime would require a major study to do it justice.

<hr>

The problem of dealing with the growing power of nation-states and of centralized corporations, property ownership, production, and the like is precisely a question of power--that is to say, who shall have it or who shall be denied any power at all. Michel Foucault has done our age no service by making power an evil as such. Foucauldian postmodernist views notwithstanding, the broad mass of people in the world today lack what they need most--the power to challenge the nation-state and arrest the centralization of economic resources, lest future generations see all the gains of humanity dissipated and freedom disappear from social discourse.

Minimally, if power is to be socially redistributed so that the ordinary people who do the real work of the world can effectively speak back to those run social and economic affairs, a movement is vitally needed to educate, mobilize, and, using the wisdom of ordinary and extraordinary people alike, initiate local steps to regain power in its most popular and democratic forms. Power of this kind must be collected, if we are to take democracy seriously, in newly developed institutions such as assemblies that allow for the direct participation of citizens in public affairs. Without a movement to work toward such a democratic end, including educators who are prepared, in turn, to be educated, and intellectually sophisticated people who can develop and popularize this project, efforts to challenge power as it is now constituted will simply sputter out in escapades, riots, adventures, and protests. . . .

Power that is not retained by the people is power that is given over to the state. Conversely, whatever power the people gain is power that must be taken away from the state. There can be no institutional vacuum where power exists: it is either invested in the people or it is invested in the state. Where the two "share" power, this condition is extremely precarious and often temporary. Sooner or later, the control of society and its destiny will either shift toward the people and their communities at its base or toward the professional practitioners of statecraft at its summit. Only if the whole existing pyramidal social structure is dismembered and radically democratized will the issue of domination as such disappear and be completely replaced by participation and the principle of complementarity.

Power, however, must be conceived as real, indeed solid and tangible, not only as spiritual and psychological. To ignore the fact that power is a muscular fact of life is to drift from the visionary into the ethereal and mislead the public as to its crucial significance in affecting society's destiny.

What this means is that if power is to be regained by the people from the state, the management of society must be deprofessionalized as much as possible. That is to say, it must be simplified and rendered transparent, indeed, clear, accessible, and manageable such that most of its affairs can be run by ordinary citizens. This emphasis on amateurism as distinguished from professionalism is not new. It formed the basis of Athenian democratic practice for generations. Indeed, it was so ably practiced that sortition rather than election formed the basis of the polis's democracy. It resurfaced repeatedly, for example, in early medieval city charters and confederations, and in the great democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century.

Power is also a solid and tangible fact to be reckoned with militarily, notably in the ubiquitous truth that the power of the state or the people eventually reposes in force. Whether the state has power ultimately depends upon whether it exercises a monopoly of violence. By the same token, whether the people have power ultimately depend upon whether they are armed and create their own grassroots militia, to guard not only themselves from criminals or invaders but their own power and freedom from the ever-encroaching power of the state itself. Here, too, the Athenian, British, and American yeomen knew only too well that a professional military was a threat to liberty and the state was a vehicle for disarming the people.

A true civicism that tries to create a genuine politics, an empowered citizenry, and a municipalized economy would be a vulnerable project indeed if it failed to replace the police and the professional army with a popular militia--more specifically, a civic guard, composed of rotating patrols for police purposes and well-trained citizen military contingents for dealing with external dangers to freedom. Greek democracy would never have survived the repeated assaults of the Greek aristocracy without its militia of citizen hoplites, those foot soldiers who could answer the call to arms with their own weapons and elected commanders. The tragic history of the state's ascendancy over free municipalities, even the rise of oligarchy within free cities of the past, is the story of armed professionals who commandeered power from unarmed peoples or disarmed them presumably (as so many liberals would have it today) from the "hazards" of domestic and neighborhood "shootouts." Typically, this is the cowboy or "gunslinger" image of the "American Dream," often cynically imposed on its more traditional yeoman face.

<hr>

Beyond the municipal agenda that I have presented thus far lies another, more long-range, one: the vision of a political world in which the state as such would finally be replaced completely by a confederal network of municipal assemblies; all socially important forms of property would be absorbed into a truly political economy in which municipalities, interacting with each other economically as well as politically, would resolve their material problems as citizens in open assemblies, not simply as professionals, farmers, and blue- or white-collar workers; and humanly scaled and physically decentralized municipalities.

Not only would people then be able to transform themselves from occupational beings into communally oriented citizens; they would create a world in which all weapons could indeed be beaten into plowshares. Ultimately, it would be possible for new networks of communities to emerge that would be exquisitely tailored--psychologically and spiritually as well as technologically, architecturally, and structurally--to the natural environments in which they exist.

This agenda for a more distant future embodies the "ultimate" vision I have elaborated in greater detail in my previous writings. Its achievement can no longer be seen as a sudden "revolution" that within a brief span of time will replace the present society with a radically new one. Actually, such revolutions never really happened in history. Even the French Revolution, which radicals have long regarded as a paradigm of sudden social change, was generations in making and did not come to its definitive end until a century later, when the last of the sans culottes were virtually exterminated on the barricades of the Paris Commune of 1871.

Nor can we afford today the myth today that barricades are more than a symbol. What links my minimal agenda to my ultimate one is a process, an admittedly long development in which the existing institutions and traditions of freedom are slowly enlarged and expanded. For the present, we must try increasingly to democratize the republic, a call that consists of preserving--and expanding--freedoms we have earned centuries ago, together with the institutions that give them reality. For the future it means that we must radicalize the democracy we create, imparting an even more creative content to the democratic institutions we have rescued and tried to develop.

Admittedly, at that later point we will have moved from a countervailing position that tries to play our democratic institutions against the state into a militant attempt to replace the state with municipally based confederal structures. It is to be devoutly hoped that by that time, too, the state power itself will have been hollowed out institutionally by local or civic structures, indeed that its very legitimacy, not to speak of its authority as a coercive force, will simply lead to its collapse in any period of confrontation. If the great revolutions of the past provide us with examples of how so major a shift is possible, it would be well to remember that seemingly all-powerful monarchies that the republics replaced two centuries ago were so denuded of power that they crumbled rather than "fell," much as a mummified corpse turns to dust after it has been suddenly exposed to air.

Another future prospect also faces us, a chilling one, in which urbanization so completely devours the city and the countryside that community becomes an archaism; in which a market society filters into the most private recesses of our lives as individuals and effaces all sense of personality, let alone individuality; in which a state renders politics and citizenship not only a mockery but a maw that absorbs the very notion of freedom itself.

This prospect is still sufficiently removed from our most immediate experience that its realization can be arrested by those countervailing forces--that dual power--that I have outlined. Given the persistent destructuring of the natural world as well as the social, more than human freedom is in the balance. The rise of reactionary nationalisms and proliferation of nuclear weapons are only two reminders that we may be reaching a point of cosmic finality in our affairs on the planet. Thus the recovery of a classical concept of politics and citizenship is not only a precondition for a free society; it is also a precondition for our survival as a species. Looming before us is the image of a completely destructured and simplified natural world as well as a completely destructured and simplified urban world--a natural and social world so divested of its variety that we, like all other complex life-forms, will be unable to exist as viable beings.

==Notes==

This article consists of excerpts from <I>From Urbanization to Cities</I> (1987; London: Cassell, 1995), with revisions.

#Lester Brown et al., <I>State of the World</I>: 1995 (New York and London: W. W. Norton and Co., 1995), pp. 60-70.
#Ibid., p. 67.

==Credits==
*Text is adopted from [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/libmuni.html Anarchist Archives].

[[fr:Municipalisme_libertaire]]
[[de:LibertÃ¤rer Municipalismus]]
[[es:municipalismo-libertario]]
[[it:municipalismo libertario]]

Murray Bookchin

2008-07-24T21:06:43Z

Eamr: see http://fra.anarchopedia.org/Municipalisme_libertaire

{{chomskytorrent|2520|Anarchism in America (1983)}}
{{Voice of Freedom|226333|Book review - "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism"}}
[[Image:Bookchin.jpg|right|thumb|Murray Bookchin]]
'''Murray Bookchin''' (born [[January 14]], [[1921]] - died [[July 30]], [[2006]]) was an [[United States of America]] based [[anarchism|anarchist]]/municipalist speaker and writer, and founder of the "[[Social Ecology]]" school of anarchist and environmental thought.

He was born in [[New York City]] and grew up as a self-described "red-diaper baby", imbued with [[Marxism|Marxist]] ideology from his youth. In adolescence he gravitated towards [[Trotskyism]], then gradually became disillusioned with the [[coercion]] he saw as inherent in conventional [[Marxism-Leninism]]. In some circles he became known for his ability to deliver devastating criticisms of Marxist ideology using conventional Marxist language. In the [[1960s]] he was a member of the [[Libertarian League]].

Bookchin has remained a radical [[anti-capitalism|anti-capitalist]] and vocal advocate of the [[decentralisation]] of society. He was influential on the [[anti-globalization movement]]. His idea of [[Libertarian Municipalism]] has had an influence on the [[Green movement|Green Movement]].

Bookchin is the author of many works, including ''Post Scarcity Anarchism'' and ''The Ecology of Freedom''.

== Quotes ==
* "[[Peter Kropotkin]] described Anarchism as the extreme left wing of socialism - a view with which I completely agree. One of my deepest concerns today is that the libertarian socialist core will be eroded by fashionable, post- modernist, spiritualist, mystic individualism."

*"Capitalism is a social cancer. It has always been a social cancer. It is the disease of society. It is the malignancy of society."

*"The rights of individual workers must be seen as part of a dualistic struggle between the atavistic desires of the unrealised soul and the animistic death-tendencies of loosely collected societal functions."

== Selected Works ==
*Post-Scarcity Anarchism (1971)
*Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (1997)
*The Limits of the City (1973)
*Toward an Ecological Society (1980)
*The Ecology of Freedom (1982) ISBN 0917352092
*The Modern Crisis (1986) ISBN 086571083X
*Re-Enchanting Humanity (1995) ISBN 030432843X

== General Reading ==
*Biehl, J. (1997), ''The Murray Bookchin Reader''. Cassell ISBN 0304338737
*Clark, J. (1990), ''Renewing the Earth: The Promise of Social Ecology''. Green Print. ISBN 1854250019

== External link ==
* [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/Bookchinarchive.html Murray Bookchin Archive]
* [http://www.bluegreenearth.com/site/news/bookchin2.html Obituary by Rob Allen]

{{wikipedia|Murray Bookchin}}

[[Category:Anarchists|Bookchin, Murray]]

[[de:Murray Bookchin]]
[[ifsen:Murray Bookchin]]
[[pl:Murray Bookchin]]
[[it:Murray Bookchin]]
[[fr:Murray Bookchin]]

Mihail Alexandrovich Bakunin

2008-07-24T21:02:08Z

Eamr:

[[Image:Stencil bakunin.jpeg|thumb|right|Stencil of Bakunin]]

'''Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin''' ( ÐœÐ¸Ñ…Ð°Ð¸Ð» ÐÐ»ÐµÐºÑÐ°Ð½Ð´Ñ€Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ‡ Ð‘Ð°ÐºÑƒÐ½Ð¸Ð½), (30 May, [[1814]] â€“ 13 June, [[1876]]) was an collectivist [[anarchist]] writer and philosopher from [[Russia]].

In "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin (Monthly Review Press, 1970), page 4, Guerin states, "The relative unity of social anarchism arises from the fact that it was developed during a single period by two masters, one of whom was a disciple of the other: the Frenchman [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/Proudhonarchive.html Pierre-Joseph Proudhon] (1809-1865) and the Russian exile [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/Bakuninarchive.html Mikhail Bakunin] (1814-1876). The latter defined [[anarchism]] as 'Proudhonism greatly developed and pushed to its furthest conclusion'. This type of anarchism called itself collectivist".

== Works ==

God and the State

== Quotes ==
* "I reverse the phrase of [[Voltaire]], and say that, if [[God]] really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."

*"[[Liberty]] without [[socialism]] is [[privilege]] and [[injustice]]; socialism without liberty is [[slavery]] and brutality."

[[Category:Anarchists]]

anarchist communism

2008-07-24T20:59:23Z

Eamr: /* People */ this anarchists were not communists

{{anarchism}}
'''Anarchist communism''' is a form of [[anarchism]] that advocates the abolition of the [[State]] and [[capitalism]] in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

Anarchist communism is also known as '''anarcho-communism''', '''communist anarchism''', or, sometimes, '''libertarian communism'''. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as [[council communism|council communists]], are not anarchists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the former's opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.

==Development of ideas==
Anarchist communist currents manifested themselves during the [[English Revolution]] and the [[French Revolution]]. [[Gerrard Winstanley]], who was part of the radical [[Diggers]] movement in England, wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, "The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm] During the French Revolution, [[Sylvain Marechal]], in his "Manifesto of the Equals" (1796), demanded "the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth" and looked forward to the disappearance of "the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed."[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm]

An early anarchist communist was [[Joseph DÃ©jacque]], the first person to describe himself as "[[libertarian socialism|libertarian]]".<ref>[http://joseph.dejacque.free.fr/ecrits/lettreapjp.htm De l'Ãªtre-humain mÃ¢le et femelle - Lettre Ã P.J. Proudhon par Joseph DÃ©jacque] (in [[French language|French]])</ref> Unlike [[Proudhon]], he argued that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm]

The [[collectivist anarchism|collectivist anarchists]] advocated remuneration for labor but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. Bakunin's associate, [[James Guillaume]], put it this way in his essay, ''[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm Ideas on Social Organization]''(1876): "Whenâ€¦ production comes to outstrip consumptionâ€¦ [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."

Anarchist communism was first formulated in the [[Italia]]n section of the [[First International]], by [[Carlo Cafiero]], [[Errico Malatesta]], [[Andrea Costa]] and other ex-[[Giuseppe Mazzini|Mazzinian]] Republicans. Out of respect for [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/bakunin.htm Mikhail Bakunin], they did not make their differences with [[collectivist anarchism]] explicit until after Bakunin's death. The collectivist anarchists sought to collectivize ownership of the means of production while retaining payment for labor, but the anarcho-communists sought to extend the concept of collective ownership to the products of labor as well. While both groups argued against capitalism , the anarchist communists departed from Proudhon and Bakunin who maintained that individuals have a right to the product of their labor and to be remunerated for their work, while the communists believe individuals should be free to access goods according to their needs without respect to how much labor they exert. Cafeiro explains in ''Anarchy and Communism'' (1880) that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions: "If we preserve the individual appropriation of the products of labour, we would be forced to preserve money, leaving more or less accumulation of wealth according to more or less merit rather than need of individuals."[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm] In [[1876]], at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, held in a forest outside [[Florence]] due to [[police]] activity, they declared the principles of Anarcho-communism, beginning with:

:"The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point..."

The above report was made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura Federation's bulletin later that year.

[[Peter Kropotkin]], often seen as the most important theorist of anarchist communism, outlined his economic ideas in ''[[The Conquest of Bread]]'' and ''[[Fields, Factories and Workshops]]''. Kropotkin felt co-operation to be more beneficial than competition, arguing in ''[[Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution]]'' that this was illustrated in nature.
He advocated the abolition of private property through the "expropriation of the whole of social wealth" by the people themselves<ref>[[Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]], Peter. ''Words of a Rebel'', p99.</ref>, and for the economy to be co-ordinated through a horizontal network of voluntary associations<ref>[[Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]], Peter. ''[[The Conquest of Bread]]'', p145.</ref>. He maintained that in anarcho-communism "houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation" and money, wages, and trade would be abolished.<ref>Kropotkin, Peter. [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch13.html Chapter 13 ''The Collectivist Wages System'' from ''The Conquest of Bread''], G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London, 1906.</ref> Individuals and groups would use and control whatever resources they needed as the aim of anarchist-communism was to place "the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home." <ref>''The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought''</ref> Moreover, he repeatedly stressed (like other communist-anarchists) that individuals would not be forced into communism, arguing that the peasant "who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate," the family "inhabiting a house which affords them just enough spaceâ€¦ considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would be free to live as they saw fit. <ref>''Act for Yourself'', pp. 104-5</ref>

==Theory==

Anarchist communism stresses [[egalitarianism]] and the abolition of [[social hierarchy]] and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and [[money]], and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations.

In anarchist communism, the state and property no longer exist. Each individual and group is free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution are managed by their participants.

The abolition of [[wage labor]] is central to anarchist communism. With distribution of wealth being based on self-determined needs, people will be free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling and will no longer have to engage in work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.

Anarchist communists argue that any economic system based on wage labor and private property will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise.

== Philosophical arguments ==
Anarchist communists reject the claim that wage labor is necessary because people are by "nature" lazy and selfish. They point out that even the so-called "idle rich" sometimes find useful things to do despite having all their needs satisfied by the labor of others.

Anarchist communists support communism as a means for ensuring the greatest freedom and well-being for everyone, rather than only the wealthy and powerful. In this sense, anarchist communism is a profoundly [[egalitarian]] philosophy. Anarchist communists do not think that anyone has the right to be anyone else's boss.

==Criticisms==
Many [[individualist anarchists]] believe that elements of anarcho-communism are undesirable or even incompatible with anarchism. For example, [[Benjamin Tucker]] referred to anarcho-communism as "Pseudo-anarchism" ([http://www.blackcrayon.com/page.jsp/library/tucker/tucker37.htm ''Labor and its Pay'']) when admonishing Peter Kropotkin for opposing wages.

[[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]], whose philosophy had great influence on early anarchist communists, nonetheless refused to use the term "communism" to describe his own views. At the time he wrote most of his works, the word "communism" was typically used to refer to the views of the [[utopian socialism|utopian socialists]], whom Proudhon accused of attempting to impose equality by sovereign decrees. In opposition to the communist maxim "to each according to need", Proudhon said "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained" (''The Philosophy of Misery'').

More recently, advocates of [[post-left anarchy]], such as [[Bob Black]] in ''Anarchy After Leftism'', argue that leftists have an attachment to generic moral standards which are incompatible with anarchism, and seek to establish political forms, such as [[platformism]] and [[direct democracy]], which amount to forms of the state.

==See also==
*[[Anarchism]]
*[[communism]]
*[[Libertarian Socialism]]
*[[Socialism]]

== People ==
* [[Alexander Berkman]]
* [[Joseph DÃ©jacque]]
* [[Emma Goldman]]
* [[Daniel GuÃ©rin]]
* [[Peter Kropotkin]]
* [[Nestor Makhno]]
* [[Errico Malatesta]]

==References==
<references/>

== Books ==
*[[Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici]], ''[http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1336 Anarchist Communists: A Question Of Class]'', others
*[[Alexander Berkman]], ''[http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html What is Communist Anarchism?]'', ''Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist'', others
*[[Mikhail Bakunin]], ''[http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html God and the State]'', ''The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State'', others
*[[Emma Goldman]], ''[http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html Anarchism and Other Essays]'', ''Living My Life'', others
*[[Peter Kropotkin]], ''[[Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution|Mutual Aid]]'', ''[[The Conquest of Bread]]'', others
*[[Nestor Makhno]] [[Ida Mett]] [[Piotr Arshinov]] [[Valevsky]] [[Linsky]], ''[http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/platform/org_plat.htm The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists]'' (available in: Castellano, ÄeÅ¡tina, English, ÎˆÎ»Î»Î·Î½Î¹ÎºÎ¬, FranÃ§ais, Italiano, Ivrit, Magyar, Nederlands, Polska, PortuguÃªs, PyccÐºÐ¸Ð¹, Svenska, TÃ¼rkÃ§e)
*[[Robert Graham (anarchist historian)]], ''Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, Volume 1: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE-1939)''[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm] contains extensive selections from the anarchist communists, including [[Joseph Dejacque]], [[Carlo Cafiero]], [[Peter Kropotkin]], [[Luigi Galleani]], [[Errico Malatesta]], [[Charlotte Wilson]], [[Ricardo Flores Magon]], [[Shifu]], [[Hatta Shuzo]], [[Alexander Berkman]], [[Voline]], and [[Isaac Puente]].

==External links==
* [http://nefac.net/node/157 ''Anarchist-Communism''] by Alain Pengam
* [http://www.anarkismo.net/ Anarkismo.net] - Anarchist Communist news, discussion and theory from across the globe
* [http://www.afed.org.uk/ Anarchist Federation] - anarchist communist organisation in Britain
* [http://conceivia.com/ Conceivia.com] - Technology development and support of the world movement
* [http://libcom.org/ libcom.org] - the home of anarchism and libertarian communism in the UK
* [http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html Work - Community - Politics - War: An easy introduction to anti-political insurrectionist communism]
* [http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici] - ([[FdCA]])
* [http://www.nefac.net/ North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists] - ([[NEFAC]])
* [http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/ Workers Solidarity Movement] - Anarchist Communist organisation in Ireland

===Criticisms===
* [http://www.spunk.org/texts/misc/sp000050.txt ''A Critique of Anarchist Communism''] by Ken Knudson A criticism from an [[individualist anarchist]] perspective
* [http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-2-2-5.pdf ''My Anarchism''] S. E. Parker explains his conversion from communist to individualist anarchism
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html The Death Wish of Anarcho-Communists] by Murray Rothbard

{{wikipedia|en:Anarchist communism}}

[[Category:Anarchism]]
[[Category:Libertarian communism]]

Main Page

2008-07-11T12:26:01Z

Eamr:

{| class="boilerplate" id="pd" style="width:80%; margin: 0 auto; border:2px solid #aaaaaa; padding:5px; background-color: #fff9f2;" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4"

| <center>
[[Anarchopedia]] has [[Special:Allpages|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles.<br/>
'''Are you an enthusiastic, knowledgeable [[Wikipedia]] editor or an [[anarchism|Anarchist]] writer?'''<br/>
If so, Anarchopedia needs your help, [[Anarchopedia:how to help|find out what you can do]].</center>
|}

<div style="border:1px solid #444444;margin:10px;padding:0.1em">
{|width="100%" style="text-align: center;padding:0.8em" cellspacing="14px"
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[labour]]'''</div>[[social class|Class]] struggle.<br/><small>[[anarcho-syndicalism]]</small>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[feminism]]'''</div>Liberation of [[female|women]].<br/><small>[[anarcha-feminism]]</small>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[LGBT]]'''</div>Freedom to [[sexuality]] and [[gender identity]].<br/><small>[[anarcho-queer]]</small>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[ecology]]'''</div>Protecting the [[Earth]].<br/><small>[[eco-anarchism]]</small>
|width="33%" rowspan="2"|[[Image:Anarchopedia.png]]
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[animal liberation]]'''</div>Fight against [[speciesism]].<br/><small>[[green anarchism]]</small>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[prison abolition]]'''</div>No to modern [[slavery]].<br/><small>[[Anarchist Black Cross]]</small>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[free speech]]'''</div>For world without [[censorship]].
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[gift economy]]'''</div>[[private property|Property]] is theft.
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[cooperation]]'''</div>We accomplish more by working without [[hierarchy]].
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[revolution]]'''</div>No Pasaran!
|}
</div>

<div style="border:1px solid #444444;margin:10px;padding:0.1em">
{|width="100%" style="text-align: center;padding:0.8em" cellspacing="14px"
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarcho-syndicalism|Anarcho-syndicalism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarchism|Anarchism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarcha-feminism|Anarcha-feminism]]'''</div>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarcho-communism|Anarcho-communism]]'''</div>
|width="33%" rowspan="3"|[[Image:Black flag waving.png]]
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Individualist anarchism|Individualist anarchism]]'''</div>

|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Libertarian socialism|Libertarian socialism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Mutualism|Mutualism]]'''</div>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Green anarchism|Green anarchism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Crypto-anarchism|Crypto-anarchism]]'''</div>
|-

|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[list of anarchist concepts|anarchist concepts]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[list of anarchists|anarchists]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[past and present anarchist communities|anarchist revolutions]]'''</div>
|}
</div>

<htmlet>clustycloud-host_eng_anarchopedia</htmlet>
<htmlet>clustycloud-anarchopedia</htmlet>

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__
[[ar:Ø§Ù„ØµÙØØ© Ø§Ù„Ø±Ø¦ÙŠØ³ÙŠØ©]]
[[id:Halaman Utama]]
[[bs:Glavna_strana]]
[[zh:é¦–é¡µ]]
[[da:Forside]]
[[de:Hauptseite]]
[[el:Î‘ÏÏ‡Î¹ÎºÎ® ÏƒÎµÎ»Î¯Î´Î±]]
[[es:Portada]]
[[eo:ÄˆefpaÄo]]
[[fa:ØµÙØÙ‡Ù” Ø§ØµÙ„ÛŒ]]
[[fr:Accueil]]
[[hr:Glavna strana]]
[[it:Prima Pagina]]
[[ja:ãƒ¡ã‚¤ãƒ³ãƒšãƒ¼ã‚¸]]
[[lt:index.php/PradÅ¾ia]]
[[nl:Hoofdpagina]]
[[no:Hovedside]]
[[nn:Hovudside]]
[[pl:Strona gÅ‚Ã³wna]]
[[pt:PÃ¡gina principal]]
[[ro:Pagina principalÄƒ]]
[[ru:Ð—Ð°Ð³Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ†Ð°]]
[[sr:Ð“Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð° ÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð°]]
[[sv:Huvudsida]]

Spam blacklist

2008-07-06T00:33:53Z

Eamr:

# <pre>
# This is a list of domain names which are considered spam. Please check
# the guidelines on the talk page when adding entries. Changes should take
# effect immediately. Please do not use this list against spam that can
# be dealt with by user blocking or protection of a small number of pages.
#
# Syntax is as follows:
# * Everything from a "#" character to the end of the line is a comment
# * Every non-blank line is a regex fragment which will only match hosts
# inside URLs
#

wc1\.worldcrossing\.com

# Anarchopedia's spam blacklist, 2006
allgames4u\.net
games\.az\.pl
jewsdidwtc\.com
# .*->.* # for urls obfuscated by "" (Mediawiki bug) there are problems with this regexps (false positives)
# [-a-zA-Z0-9.]*[<][!][-] # for urls obfuscated by "", activate if necessary

# Anarchopedia's spam blacklist, 2007
people\.msoe\.edu\/.millerni
news\.engin\.brown\.edu
hummer\.happyhost\.org
zima\.firm\.in
replace\.150m\.com
www\.empiregoldcoins\.com
obninsk\.in
www\.curriculum\.k12\.sd\.us
rasklad\.net\.in\/viagra
tylka\.extra\.hu
idisk\.mac\.com\/tykarl
freewebtown\.com\/boogiejames
bloprofeldi\.info
akmokanzen\.ifrance\.com
zy\.info
rigour\.info
dynamo

#</pre>

User talk:Tenshj

2008-07-06T00:25:28Z

Eamr:

KÃ¶nntest du es mal unterlassen, Anarchopedia als deine persÃ¶nliche MÃ¼llhalde zu missbrauchen? Die Sportler hÃ¤tte ich ja vielleicht noch gelten lassen, uns aber das Foto von Mielke rein zu setzen, damit hast du den Bogen Ã¼berspannt. --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why you have just protected 46 pages? [[User:Elassint|Elassint]] 7/4/08

Wenn du das nÃ¤chste mal hier dein Stasi-Mist spamst, werde ich die gesamte IP-Range deines Internetproviders sperren. Befasse dich erst mal mit den Grundlagen des Anarchismus, dann merkst du vielleicht selbst, warum das Zeug hier nichts zu suchen hat. --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Burj Dubai

2008-07-06T00:08:53Z

Eamr:

Do we need this? --[[User:Elassint|Elassint]] 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:I think no... were is the anarchist related content in this topic? --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Burj Dubai

2008-07-06T00:07:18Z

Eamr:

Do we need this? --[[User:Elassint|Elassint]] 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:I think no... --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tenshj

2008-06-30T22:00:32Z

Eamr:

User talk:Tenshj

2008-06-30T21:39:12Z

Eamr: New page: Könntest du es mal unterlassen, Anarchopedia als deine persönliche Müllhalde zu missbrauchen? --~~~~

KÃ¶nntest du es mal unterlassen, Anarchopedia als deine persÃ¶nliche MÃ¼llhalde zu missbrauchen? --[[User:Eamr|Eamr]] 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky

2008-05-06T19:22:05Z

Eamr: Undo revision 31977 by 65.204.21.235 (Talk)

'''Leon Davidovich Trotsky''' ([[Russian language|Russian]]: Лев Давидович Троцкий; also [[transliteration|transliterated]] ''Trotskii'', ''Trotski'', ''Trotzky'') (October 26 ([[Julian calendar|O.S.]]) = [[November 07]] ([[Gregorian calendar|N.S.]]), [[1879]] - [[August 21]], [[1940]]), born '''Lev Davidovich Bronstein''' (Лев Давидович Бронштейн), was a [[Bolshevik]] revolutionary and [[Marxism|Marxist]] intellectual. He was an influential politician in the early [[Soviet Union]], first as [[People's Commissar]] for Foreign Affairs and then as the founder and commander of the [[Red Army]] and People's Commissar of War. He was also a founding member of the [[Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee|Politburo]]. Following a power struggle with [[Joseph Stalin]] in the [[1920s]], Trotsky was expelled from the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Communist Party]] and deported from the Soviet Union; he was later murdered in [[Mexico]] by a Soviet agent. Trotsky's ideas form the basis of the [[communism|communist]] theory of [[Trotskyism]].

== Early days ==

His date of birth in the [[Gregorian calendar]] is [[November 07]] – the same day as the [[Russian revolution|Soviet revolution]] of [[1917]]. Since the [[Julian calendar]] was replaced in [[1918]], his date of death is that of the [[Gregorian calendar]]. He was born in [[Yanovka]], [[Kherson Province]], [[Ukraine]], the son of a farmer, David Bronstein, of [[Judaism|Jewish]] background. He was sent at age 8 by his father to [[Odessa]] for education and was transferred to [[Mykolayiv|Nikolayev]] six years later.

== Revolutionary activity ==

He was first introduced to [[Marxism]] in [[1896]], whilst at school in [[Mykolayiv|Nikolayev]] studying [[mathematics]]. He was first arrested in [[1898]] while working as an organizer for the [[South Russian Workers' Union]]. He was sentenced to two years in prison. During this time, he married his first wife, [[Aleksandra Sokolovskaya]]. In [[1900]] he was sentenced to four years in exile in [[Siberia]], where his first two daughters were born. He escaped from Siberia, taking the name Trotsky from a former jailer in [[Odessa]], and proceeded to [[London]] to join [[Vladimir Lenin]], then managing editor of the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] newspaper ''[[Iskra]]''.

He attended the [[Second Congress]] of the RSDLP in London in the summer of [[1903]], and in the internal dispute which split the party, sided with the [[Mensheviks]] against Lenin. Although his allegiance to the Mensheviks was short-lived, the damage to his relationship with Lenin lasted for the next 14 years.

By [[1905]], he had returned to [[Russia]]. He was elected Chairman of the [[St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies]]. His involvement in the October general strike and his support for that armed rebellion led to his conviction and sentence to exile for life. In January [[1907]], he escaped en route to exile and once again made his way to London, where he attended the [[Fifth Party Congress]]. In October, he moved to [[Vienna]], where he edited a Social Democratic paper called ''Pravda'', which was smuggled into Russia. It was one of numerous short-lived revolutionary ''Pravdas'' and had no connection with the official paper of the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] (see ''[[Pravda]]'').

As war approached, Trotsky moved to neutral [[Switzerland]], then to [[France]]. He was deported from France and was living in [[New York City]] when the February [[1917]] [[Russian Revolution]] removed [[Nicholas II of Russia|Tsar Nicholas II]]. He returned in May of that year to Russia as a supporter of the [[Bolshevik]] position, formally joining the faction a few months later. Trotsky was actively involved in efforts to overthrow the [[Russian Provisional Government, 1917|Provisional Government]] headed by [[Aleksandr Kerensky]] and was Chair of the Revolutionary Military Committee that planned and implemented the [[October Revolution]].

== After the Russian Revolution ==

After the Bolsheviks came to power, he became the [[People's Commissar]] for Foreign Affairs with the major goal of negotiating peace with [[Germany]] and her allies. But his withdrawal from the talks ([[February 10]], [[1918]]) provoked a German invasion ([[February 18]]), forcing the Soviet regime to sign the highly disadvantageous [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]] on [[March 3]]. Trotsky subsequently resigned his diplomatic position. In March, 1918 he was appointed [[People's Commissar]] of Army and Fleet Affairs (Нарком по военным и морским делам, Нарком армии и флота) (1918-1925). In September 1918 he was appointed Chairman of [[Revolutionary Military Council]] (Реввоенсовет) of the Republic. <br>
As founder and commander of the [[Red Army]], he was largely responsible for their success over the [[White Army]] and victory in the lengthy and violent [[Russian Civil War]].<br>
In [[March]] [[1921]] he organised and directed the suppression of the [[Kronstadt Rebellion]], famous as the last major revolt against [[Bolshevik]] rule and an important event in the history of [[Libertarian socialist]] and [[Anarchism|Anarchist]] struggle.<br>
With the illness and death of Lenin, [[Joseph Stalin]] was able to consolidate his control of the Party and the government. At this point, Trotsky was unable or unwilling to actively oppose Stalin. By remaining silent at the [[Twelfth Party Congress]] in 1923, particularly on the issue of the suppressed [[Lenin's Testament|Testament of Lenin]] that called for Stalin's removal, Trotsky lost his last real opportunity to oppose Stalin, who, along with [[Lev Kamenev]] and [[Grigory Zinoviev]], was able to take control of the Party. Trotsky and his supporters founded the [[Left Opposition]], which fought within the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Communist Party]] for several years against Stalin's platform and leadership.

Trotsky put forward the theory of '[[Permanent Revolution]]' and an internationalist perspective, which stood in stark contrast to Stalin's policy of building '[[Socialism in One Country]]'. He also put forward an argument for rapid industrialization of the economy and abandonment of the [[New Economic Policy]] while Stalin, allied with [[Bukharin]], argued for gradual industrialization and retention of the NEP. This ideological division provided much of the intellectual basis for the political divide between Trotsky and Stalin, which culminated on [[November 12]], [[1927]] when he was expelled from the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Soviet Communist Party]] (leaving Stalin with undisputed control of the Soviet Union). He was exiled to [[Alma Ata]] (now in [[Kazakhstan]]) on [[January 31]], [[1928]]. He was expelled from the Soviet Union in [[1929]].

Following Trotsky's defeat, Stalin turned against Bukharin and appropriated much of Trotsky's domestic economic policy, although he implemented it in a manner criticised for being overly violent and authoritarian.

== In exile ==

Trotsky was deported in [[1928]]. His first station in exile was the [[Turkey|Turkish]] island of [[Prinkipo]], where he stayed four years. In [[1933]] he was offered asylum in [[France]] by [[Ã‰douard Daladier|Daladier]]. He stayed first at [[Royan]], then at [[Barbizon]]. He was not allowed to visit Paris. In [[1935]] it was implied to him that he was no longer welcome in France and, after weighting alternatives, he moved to [[Norway]], where he was a guest of [[Konrad Knudsen]] near [[Oslo]]. After two years, allegedly under influence from the Soviet Union, he was put under house arrest. After consultations with the Norwegian officials, his transfer to [[Mexico]] on a freighter was arranged.

In Mexico, he lived at one point at the home of the painter [[Diego Rivera]], and at another at that of [[Frida Kahlo]]. He was a prolific writer penning several key works including his ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/index.htm History of the Russian Revolution]'' ([[1930]]) and ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm The Revolution Betrayed]'' ([[1936]]), a critique of the Soviet Union under [[Stalinism]]. Trotsky argued that the Soviet state had become a ''[[degenerated workers' state]]'' controlled by an undemocratic bureaucracy, which would eventually either be overthrown via a second proletarian socialist revolution or degenerate to the point where it reverts to capitalism (as it has today).

In [[1938]], Trotsky and his supporters founded an international [[Marxist]] organization, the [[Fourth International]], which was intended to be a [[Trotskyism|Trotskyist]] alternative to the Stalinist [[Comintern|Third International]]. Trotsky eventually quarreled with Rivera and in [[1939]] moved into his own residence in [[CoyoacÃ¡n]] (a neighborhood in [[Mexico City]]). On [[May 24]], [[1940]], he survived a raid on his home by alleged Stalinist assassins. Later, on [[August 20]], 1940, Trotsky was successfully attacked in his home by a Stalinist agent, [[RamÃ³n Mercader]], who drove the pick of an [[ice axe]] (whose shaft had been drastically shortened in order to allow the weapon to be concealed), into Trotsky's skull. The blow was poorly delivered, however, and failed to kill Trotsky instantly as Mercader had intended. Witnesses have stated that Trotsky let out a blood-curdling cry and began struggling fiercely with Mercader. Hearing the commotion, Trotsky's bodyguards burst into the room and nearly killed Mercader, but Trotsky stopped them, shouting, "Do not kill him! This man has a story to tell." Trotsky died the next day.

Mercader later testified at his trial: "I laid my raincoat on the table in such a way as to be able to remove the ice axe which was in the pocket. I decided not to miss the wonderful opportunity that presented itself.
The moment Trotsky began reading the article, he gave me my chance; I took out the ice axe from the raincoat, gripped it in my hand and, with my eyes closed, dealt him a terrible blow on the head."

Trotsky's house in CoyoacÃ¡n was preserved in much the same condition as it was on the day of the assassination and is now a museum. His grave is in its grounds.

Trotsky was never formally rehabilitated by the Soviet government, despite the [[Glasnost]]-era rehabilitation of most other [[Old Bolshevik]]s killed during the [[Great Purges]].

== Theory ==

=== Trotskyism ===
''Main article: [[Trotskyism]].''

==== Permanent Revolution ====
''Main article: [[Permanent Revolution]].''

==== Transitional Program ====
''Main article: [[Transitional Program]].''

== Related articles ==

*[[Stalinism]]
*[[History of Russia]], a series of articles.
*[[Labor army]]
*[[David Ives]] wrote a satirical one-act play entitled ''Variations on the Death of Trotsky'', included in the collection ''[[All in the Timing]]''

==References==
* ''The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History,'' Volume 39, published by Academic International Press
* ''Trotsky, the Eternal Revolutionary'' by Dimitri Volkogonov published by the Free Press in [[1996]].
* ''The Mind of an Assassin'', by [[Isaac Don Levine]], New York: New American Library/Signet Book, [[1960]].
* [[Isaac Deutscher]] wrote a largely sympathetic biography of Trotsky, in three volumes, titled ''Trotsky: The Prophet Armed'' ([[1954]]), ''Trotsky: The Prophet Unarmed'' ([[1959]]), and ''Trotsky: The Prophet Outcast'' ([[1963]]). Also see his book ''Ironies of History'' ([[1966]]).
* Dave Renton - ''Trotsky'' ([[2004]])

==External links==
*[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm Trotsky archive] at [[Marxists.org]] (under [[GFDL]]-license)
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/trotsky.htm FBI records relating to Trotsky's murder]
*[http://www.trotsky.net Writings and Marxist analysis]
*[http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/life/life.htm Forty Years Since Leon Trotsky’s Assassination] by Lyn Walsh
*[http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/ Lenin and Trotsky - What they Really Stood For] by [[Alan Woods]] and [[Ted Grant]]
*[http://www.socialistworld.net/index2.html?/eng/2000/05d.html Trotsky's Relevance Today] by [[Peter Taaffe]]
*[http://geocities.com/deweytextsonline/isr.htm Impressions of Soviet Russia, by John Dewey]
*[http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/trotsky.html "Trotsky admits aid to Japanese imperialism" and other criticism on Trotsky]
*[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUStrotsky.htm Trotsky Biography] From Spartacus Educational

{{wikipedia|Trotsky}}

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Trotskism]]

Main Page

2008-05-06T17:29:02Z

Eamr: sorry beta_m, but i see no reason to destroy the main-page-layout

{| class="boilerplate" id="pd" style="width:80%; margin: 0 auto; border:2px solid #aaaaaa; padding:5px; background-color: #fff9f2;" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4"

| <center>
[[Anarchopedia]] has [[Special:Allpages|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles.<br/>
'''Are you an enthusiastic, knowledgeable [[Wikipedia]] editor or an [[anarchism|Anarchist]] writer?'''<br/>
If so, Anarchopedia needs your help, [[Anarchopedia:how to help|find out what you can do]].</center>
|}

<div style="border:1px solid #444444;margin:10px;padding:0.1em">
{|width="100%" style="text-align: center;padding:0.8em" cellspacing="14px"
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[labour]]'''</div>[[social class|Class]] struggle.<br/><small>[[anarcho-syndicalism]]</small>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[feminism]]'''</div>Liberation of [[female|women]].<br/><small>[[anarcha-feminism]]</small>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[anarcho-capitalism]]'''</div>Freedom to [[voluntaryism]] and [[capitalism]].<br/><small>[[Heathian anarchism]]</small>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[ecology]]'''</div>Protecting the [[Earth]].<br/><small>[[eco-anarchism]]</small>
|width="33%" rowspan="2"|[[Image:Anarchopedia.png]]
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[animal liberation]]'''</div>Fight against [[speciesism]].<br/><small>[[green anarchism]]</small>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[prison abolition]]'''</div>No to modern [[slavery]].<br/><small>[[Anarchist Black Cross]]</small>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[free speech]]'''</div>For world without [[censorship]].
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[gift economy]]'''</div>[[private property|Property]] is theft.
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[cooperation]]'''</div>We accomplish more by working without [[hierarchy]].
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[revolution]]'''</div>No Pasaran!
|}
</div>

<div style="border:1px solid #444444;margin:10px;padding:0.1em">
{|width="100%" style="text-align: center;padding:0.8em" cellspacing="14px"
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarcho-syndicalism|Anarcho-syndicalism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarchism|Anarchism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarcha-feminism|Anarcha-feminism]]'''</div>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Anarcho-communism|Anarcho-communism]]'''</div>
|width="33%" rowspan="3"|[[Image:Black flag waving.png]]
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Individualist anarchism|Individualist anarchism]]'''</div>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Libertarian socialism|Libertarian socialism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Mutualism|Mutualism]]'''</div>
|-
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Green anarchism|Green anarchism]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[:Category:Crypto-anarchism|Crypto-anarchism]]'''</div>
|-

|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[list of anarchist concepts|anarchist concepts]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[list of anarchists|anarchists]]'''</div>
|width="33%"|<div style="font-size: 110%">'''[[past and present anarchist communities|anarchist revolutions]]'''</div>
|}
</div>

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__
[[ar:Ø§Ù„ØµÙØØ© Ø§Ù„Ø±Ø¦ÙŠØ³ÙŠØ©]]
[[id:Halaman Utama]]
[[bs:Glavna_strana]]
[[zh:é¦–é¡µ]]
[[da:Forside]]
[[de:Hauptseite]]
[[el:Î‘ÏÏ‡Î¹ÎºÎ® ÏƒÎµÎ»Î¯Î´Î±]]
[[es:Portada]]
[[eo:ÄˆefpaÄo]]
[[fa:ØµÙØÙ‡Ù” Ø§ØµÙ„ÛŒ]]
[[fr:Accueil]]
[[hr:Glavna strana]]
[[it:Prima Pagina]]
[[ja:ãƒ¡ã‚¤ãƒ³ãƒšãƒ¼ã‚¸]]
[[lt:index.php/PradÅ¾ia]]
[[nl:Hoofdpagina]]
[[no:Hovedside]]
[[nn:Hovudside]]
[[pl:Strona gÅ‚Ã³wna]]
[[pt:PÃ¡gina principal]]
[[ro:Pagina principalÄƒ]]
[[ru:Ð—Ð°Ð³Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ†Ð°]]
[[sr:Ð“Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð° ÑÑ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð°]]
[[sv:Huvudsida]]

User talk:Eamr

2008-02-23T14:04:12Z

Eamr:

As you changed your status alone? [[User:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt|Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt]] 13:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it. Come to chat... ;-)