Talk:Individualist anarchism

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. While making any such changes, please include an accurate and concise description of your edit in the "Edit summary" field-box. Shortly after making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

individualism in europe and elsewere

I think the problem of this exageration of the american experience of anarchism is not only something that happens in this article but perhaps in many english wikipedia articles about anarchism. but anyway as far as this article i suggest we begin an investigation around important european individualists such as William Godwin, Max Stirner, Han Ryner, Émile Armand and Federico Urales and books such as EL ANARQUISMO INDIVIDUALISTA EN ESPAÑA (1923-1938). Something to think about is for example the fact that wikipedia in english doesnt have an article about Han Ryner (author of Le crime d'obéir (1900) and Petit manuel individualiste (1903)while german, spanish, and esperanto wikipedias do. It is also very likely that these people had more influence in europe and latin america and elsewhere than people like benjamin tucker and spooner.

And so lets consider two sentences in the current version of this article "While individualist anarchists include William Godwin and Max Stirner,[18][19] most individualist anarchists are market anarchists in the American tradition,[dubious – discuss]"

I dont think this can be proven and so this sentence should be erased since those who support it havent been able to provide support for this. but anyway lets consider three things. 1. the importance of Max Stiner in all anarchism is most likely the biggest in all anarchism from an individualist after godwin and proudhon. he has influenced pro market individualists and insurrectionary individualistas as well as Kropotkin. For example the only recent latin american individualist anarchist publication that i know of is El Unico from argentina and is it primarely stirnerist and even adheres in one article to socialism. and now lets not even talk about "anarcho"capitalism which nothing shows that it is not just an american right wing phenomenon. 2. individualism many times has expressed itself as communist insurrectionary ilegalism. 3. mutualism and market anarchism are almost unheard of in european and latin american anarchist circles (or elsewhere)today. stirnerism and similar positions in these places do have some presence in insurrectionary authors such as Alfredo Maria Bonnano. It is funny to hear "anarcho" capitalist Wendy mcelroy complain about anarchists black blocks in seattle 1999 for not being "american" Anarchism: Two KindsShe says "Left anarchism (socialist and communist) are foreign imports that flooded the country like cheap goods during the 19th century. Many of these anarchists (especially those escaping Russia) introduced lamentable traits into American radicalism. They believed in "propaganda by deed": that is, the use of violence as a political weapon and a form of political expression." What is useful from this "insight" for the english wikipedia article of anarchist individualism is that in the USA market anarchism might have more notoriety and force but that elsewhere it is much smaller and in some places it might never have existed at all.

"which advocate individual ownership of the produce of labor and a market economy where this property may be bought and sold. However, this form of individualist anarchism is not exclusive to the Americas;" I dont think anyone can support that tucker, spooner and the rest of the USA individualists had any influence south of the Rio Grande. Stirner and mostly proudhon did have some minimal influence.

" it is also found in the philosophy of other radical individualists, in places such as England and France—though almost all were influenced by the early American individualists.[citation needed]" i dont know if this can be supported either. i think this also should be considered for being erased.

A mayor conclusion to be extracted from all this is that this article might need to reduce the "american tradition" part. perhaps someone could create the separate article "anarchist individualism in the USA". --Eduen (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is biased towards market anarchism. Stirnerism rejects the idea of private property and so has influenced many anarcho communists and ended up influencing Benjamin Tucker and his group. --Eduen (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good show old sport. Zazaban (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh approves.

I say, capital suggestion old boy. Pip-pip, Skomorokh 10:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Max Stirner himself asserted that an individual with the power to control property could use it - hardly rejection of private property. But he did write obscurely. Maybe what you call "Stirnerism" is different from what Max thought. I suggest that you start an article on Stirnerism so we know what you mean. The fact that Stirner fans like Tucker believed in private property and private ownership of the means of production tells me that his take on Stirnerism was quite different from your European anarcho-commies'. Also, I question whether Stirner was more influential than Josiah Warren or Lysander Spooner. Maybe in Europe, but not in America. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Stirner definitely supported private property. He just didn't have a "just theory" of property. If you're strong enough to hold on to something, and take from someone else, you're the owner. What belongs to whom will be decided in the "war of all against all." To allow morality to get in the way of deciding what belongs to you is to sacrifice your self interest for illusory higher causes. The more accurate translation of his book the Ego and His Own is "The Only Individual and His Property." Jadabocho (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been plenty of people who disagree with property who have been influenced by Stirner. Zazaban (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenced, sure, but not accepting of his whole philosophy. His philosophy is indisputably supportive of individual control, as as much as the individual has in his power to control. Certainly if any communists were "influenced" by him they reject him for the most part, because he was adamantly opposed to communism seeing communalization of things as placing the individual at the mercy of the collective. Jadabocho (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Also, I question whether Stirner was more influential than Josiah Warren or Lysander Spooner. Maybe in Europe, but not in America"

Well i hope you are not talking about the American continent which goes from alaska and canada and ends up in argentina and chile. i know it is common in the USA to call their country "america". So if you are talking about the american continent well. stirner did have some minor influence in latin america. in latin american anarchist circles sometimes you hear about him, but Tucker and his other american contemporaries theres nothing. so latin american anarchism goes in the same lines as europe and it could be said this is the case in other continents where anarchism has arrived. it is because of this that Wendy mcelroy sees as a bad thing that european "commie" anarchism arrived to the USA and almost made individualist market anarchism dissapear in the USA. so this is the reason why is article is so defective because of its excessive attention to the USA.

and speaking about Stirner and his view of property. well. stirner justified stealing and all the disrespect to property or any other such metaphysical notions and said since property only justifies itself through force and alledgiance to this metaphysical notion he says you can make anything your property, thus you can steal if ouy want. this is why stirner influenced illegalism which advocated stealing and expropiating the rich and this could be individual or collective actions. french individualist anarchism was mostly illegalism. in europe and elsewhere in anarchism theres no respect for the liberal notion of natural rights which the very few american market anarchists adhere to and looks like in the end benjamin tucker also abandoned that liberal notion and embraced egoism. illegalism as you can see in the article individual reclamation based itself on stirner and proudhon in the view that taking away the property of the rich was fine adn with proudhon and others as you can see in the Severino Di Giovanni essay El derecho al ocio y a la expropiación individual where stealing and expropiating the rich, no matter if an individual or a collective, it is justified because the bourgoisie concentrates wealth and so this redistributive measure must be taken (this is supported with the proudhon notion that "property is theft"). with stirner the case is that it depends only if you want to respect property or if the owner has good enough security (whether state or private) because if these two things dont happen you can just go ahead and fulfill your desire. natural rights belivers will only moralize about saying these people are thiefs and dont want to work. stirnerists will say that indeed this is the case, they dont follow morality.

stirner not being clear on property and not having a "just theory" is not an excuse for him not being in line with liberal natural rights beliefs.

so stirner talks all the time in the ego and his own about property and making things your property if you want. he says the world can be your property. well speaking in that language you can say that this thief saw a drunk yuppie lonely in the street and went and took the yuppies money and then made this money his property. But also you can make it more in line with kropotkin and collective expropiation and say that poor people aligned with the MST landless movement in Brazil went in high numbers to that landowners land and occupied it and then that land later wasnt that landowners property anymore and was now that property of that mst collective.

he says in one line:"so it follows from this, property can´t be, and should not be abolished; the point is to take it away from the ghosts in order to make it my property. Then this ilusion will banish that I can´t take away all that i might want." "The plebs can only be helped with egoism: this help should give it to itsfelf, and this is what it will do."

"If men arrive to losing respect to property, each individual will have their proerty, the same as all slaves make themselves freemen from the day they stop respecting their Lord as their Lord. Then these will establish alliances between individuals, asociations of egoists, that will have a multiplier effect of the means of action of each and affirm their property, that will always be menaced." this of course in working class and lumpenproletariat hands went to become illegalism o as you might call it french, swiss, and italian class struggle individualist anarchism. so if you dont believe in private property or you disrespect it you happen to be in accord with communism which wants to abolish it. --Eduen (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

right now the article says"Individualist anarchism is seen by many as one of two main categories or wings of anarchism – the other has been called social,[4] socialist,[5] collectivist,[6] or communitarian[7] anarchism.[α]" well, it happens that open individualist anarchism is a minority within anarchism most anarchism has been organized anarchism, most anarchist publications, books and militants anarchists are nad have been communist and socialist. seems to me this division is too essentialist, simplistic, etc. theres individualists who adhered to communism, small peasant towns with small familiar holdings have traditionally been very communal, tucker associated his ideas with socialism, even max stirner wants collective units like "associations of egoists" etc.--Eduen (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tucker supported private property, i.e. private ownership of the means of production. Thus he was a capitalist in the modern sense of the word. He called himself a socialist, but he used the term in the 19th century sense. By the modern definition (supporting collective ownership of the means of production), he would not be one. Stirner wrote that egoists could grab all property they had the might to keep. He was for private property and amoralism. He saw the possibility of a union of egoists; he definitely did not endorse collective ownership. So he, too, was a capitalist. But he wrote so obscurely that all sorts have claimed him. BTW he was not an anarchist, and explicitly denied being one. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Tucker supported private property, i.e. private ownership of the means of production. Thus he was a capitalist in the modern sense of the word." well i dont knwo what you mean by "modern sense of the word" but even marxists distinguish between owners of things and individual people such as artisans or people who sell what they themselves raised in their lands from people who have salaried workers. this is the difference between small commerce and non capitalist markets and capitalist markets. this is why benjamin tucker was anticapitalist and adhered to socialism. if you didnt know theres a thing called market socialism. the reason it is not capitalist is because it is composed of cooperatives without owners and people who work for them and that are not owners. tucker was a mutualist in the line of proudhon. proudhon was no communist but he wasnt a capitalist either.--Eduen (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with you having a section called "Europe" under Movements, is that there is no movement called European individualist anarchism. Sure there are individualist anarchists in Europe, but what movements are they a part of? If they're not then they should be in the "People" section. Jadabocho (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In a technical and non-ideological lenguage, cooperatives market system is a workers or cooperative capitalism. The term "market socialism" is ussually applied to left-statism with market reforms and or to leftist state-descentralists (a descentralized state is not the same than anarchy), buth it usually implies the existence of an state. In our times, 99% times when you says socialism is understood like "socialization of "property" that implies a strong state. Neither a cooperative system is a synonimous of anarchism (even a interventionist state can promote a cooperative market, but not free-market).

I believe is more exactly define mutualism -if that is what you like- to a cooperative form of market anarchism, and market anarchism (ancap, agorist, mutualis, voluntarist, paleolib, etc) is the principal economical form of individualist anarchism. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stirner supported private property

Eduen claims, "Stirnerism rejects the idea of private property." I say Stirner supported private property. Let the reader decide. Here are some quotes from Stirner:

The Individual and His Property, Max Stirner (also translated as "The Ego and His Own")

Are men to give you this "freedom" -- are they to permit it to you? You do not hope that from their philanthropy, because you know they all think like you: each is the nearest to himself! How, therefore, do you mean to come to the enjoyment of those foods and beds? Evidently not otherwise than in making them your property! If you think it over rightly, you do not want the freedom to have all these fine things, for with this freedom you still do not have them; you want really to have them, to call them yours and possess them as your property. - p. 203-4

I secure my freedom with regard to the world in the degree that I make the world my own, i.e. "gain it and take possession of it" for myself, by whatever might, by that of persuasion, of petition, of categorical demand, yes, even by hypocrisy, cheating, etc.; for the means that I use for it are determined by what I am. - p. 217

But am I not still unrestrained from declaring myself the entitler, the mediator, and the own self? Then it runs thus: My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it am I my property. - p. 242

Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have labored and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then -- "it serves you right."      If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, "well-earned right" of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.      The conflict over the "right of property" wavers in vehement commotion. The Communists affirm* that "the earth belongs rightfully to him who tills it, and its products to those who bring them out." I think it belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him, does not let himself be deprived of it. If he appropriates it, then not only the earth, but the right to it too, belongs to him. This is egoistic right: i.e. it is right for me, therefore it is right. - p. 249 PhilLiberty (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"I think it belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him, does not let himself be deprived of it. If he appropriates it, then not only the earth, but the right to it too, belongs to him. This is egoistic right: i.e. it is right for me, therefore it is right."

Yes. the illegalists went in accord with this and stole from the rich (individual reclamation). Today in spain and some parts of latin american anarchists and other anticapitalists promote yomango in order to let everyone enjoy themselves by shoplifting.--Eduen (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

stirner disrespect for liberal natural rights and for private property in general is connected to the fact that post-anarchism (entirely an anticapitalist tendency) has been very interested in Stirner and so anaticapitalist Bob Black with his call for "stirnerist-marxism"--Eduen (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: Stirner supported private property, but not property rights. Stirner would say that the shoplifter owns the clothes, since he had the power to shoplift it. If the shopkeeper kills the shoplifter and gets the clothes back, then the shopkeeper owns them again. Stirner is totally amoral about this. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

individualist anarchism as mostly anticapitalist

it is also a weakness of this article the fact that it doesnt address the reality that so called "anarcho-capitalism" is a small (but dedicated with lots of web pages)tendency of mostly (if not totally) USA origin and influence mostly on the neoliberal right wing. And so since Tucker, Spooner and all the other "boston anarchists" were anticapitalist in the mutualist tradition and considering that european individualist anarchism is entirely anticapitalist the article must say this in the introduction.--Eduen (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

to add this doesnt mean ignoring the existence of USA centered "anarcho" capitalism. the other self called procapitalist anarchist tendency "agorism" seems it is spread by the same people. the reality is this are very recent developments and almost all with in the USA (well wendy mcelroy aprarently is canadian). this can be observed by the fact of Wendy mcelroy american nationalism in anarchist traditions. her article that i mentioned before shows this very well. she wants an american exceptionalism and this small tendencies and their uniqueness within all anarchism considering history and a global view shows she is in fact reflecting reality. so in order to correct the USA bias of this article these issues must be adressed.--Eduen (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

now as i mentioned before. one must make a distinction between markets and capitalism. one user above these lines doesnt want or cannot make this distinction. in order to support this distinction i propose everyone interested to consider the existence of the webpages called mutualist.org and mutualismo.org which promotes "free market anticapitalism". these webpages are in accordance with proudhon and the american boston anarchists, in fact mutualism. in their introduction they say " Mutualism, as a variety of anarchism, goes back to P.J. Proudhon in France and Josiah Warren in the U.S."

"We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use." indeed. private property isnt in itself capitalist either. and so communists (anarchist or otherwise) really arent after collectivizing your watch or your tools. in fact in cuba for example there exist small peasant propietors.

what makes capitalism is the following which is a characteristic of individualist and "social" anarchism throught history "While not all individualist anarchists agree that individuals have should have a right to private property, they all agree that practice of an employer profiting from the labor of an employee is unjustifiable"[1]. For more on this check http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html. And so lets also have in mind this anarchist FAQ was produced in the USA. it is a weakness of it to concetrate on USA individualist anarchists (USA centrism) as it fails to mention european individualist anarchists like Albert Libertad, Emile Armand and John Henry McKay. I think this justifies an important precision in the introduction and within the article. I also will undertake the expansion of the part of european individualist anarchism. this expansion will further justify this and then we will have corrected the US centrism of this article. For example, one interesting fact is how many individualist anarchists werent really too occupied with economics but prefered instead to develop libertarian education or others had a strong alledgiance to naturism. In this way a better and more just picture of the diversity of individualist anarchism through history will emerge. --Eduen (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Eduen this is a neutral media, the "truth" is not only what some anarcho-communists or Infoshop webmaster thinks. There is asociation between market/property and anarchism that become from many other anarchists, and in modern times mostly anarcho-individualists (schoolars, publications, groups, websites, and even institutions) are austro-libertarian anarchists, supporting free-market capitalism o similar. Anyway, your claim have been already discussed along 3 or 2 years, and there is already a consensus. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

About the US focus, the reality is that Colombian or Belgium o African anarchism is less important than US anarchism, and US anarcho-individualist is more relevant than Russian anarcho-individualism. I'm not speaking about intelectual value, but about factly global relevance. Anyway all anarchisms are small. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Come on people, this is not the place for these long debates. Trying to claim in the article that either the individualist or communist interpretation of Stirner is 'correct' would be POV. Both are of significance, thus both should get coverage on this website. It is not our job to tell people which is 'correct'. Nor is this talk page the place to debate it. Zazaban (talk)

Also if individualist anarchism is held as being that which supports the statements "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority" and "the system of democracy, of majority decision" over the decision of the individual "is held null and void," then all forms of egoism, including the socialist interpretations, would qualify. Zazaban (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, socialism or communism wouldn't qualify under that definition, because self interest there is constrained by the collective body. Jadabocho (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in egoist variants. Zazaban (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is asociation between market/property and anarchism that become from many other anarchists, and in modern times mostly anarcho-individualists (schoolars, publications, groups, websites, and even institutions) are austro-libertarian anarchists, supporting free-market capitalism o similar." Well, you are free to try to prove that. "Eduen this is a neutral media, the "truth" is not only what some anarcho-communists or Infoshop webmaster thinks." Indeed. I didnt put that banner of US centrism anyway. and to differ with zazaban this dichotomy of individualist (suposdely all pro market) and communist anrchism is wrong and simplistic. austrian economics. mmmmm i thought i was editing an anarchism article, but anyway if the point is to have a good article, then we have to get the history and current reality right. anyway i made my points above so i will just expand the world view of the page.--Eduen (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in the dichotomy either, I find things to agree with on both sides and my personal philosophy is a fusion, but many people will defend it to the death and this is not the place to discuss it. Zazaban (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends of the meanings of the words used, not of the words itself. Per example, I agree with Jadabocho, self-interest or self-fishness is constrained by a collectiv"ist" body.

I mean, it's not about we use word "socialism" or word "capitalism" to define anarcho-individualism, but is about the essence or nature of this doctrine, first, and second, is necessary to beging with a generic deffinition and continue with an explanation of most important "versions" of this doctrine in political matters. And obviously, I agree with "It is not our job to tell people which is 'correct'." --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"No, socialism or communism wouldn't qualify under that definition, because self interest there is constrained by the collective body." well thats why anarchocommunism and "associations of egoists" hold the principle of voluntary association. if you dont want inside a certain community you are free to go outside it. but an important principle that has united anarchocommunism, anarchosyndicalism and individualist anarchism and all the rest of anarchism is that there shouldnt be hierarchy in the workplace, and so capitalism is characterized by having the relation bosses/employees. the first only give orders and the others only receive them and obey them. Benjamin tucker and the other boston anarchists found that humiliating and from individualist standpoints rejected capitalism for mutualist non capitalist markets and other forms. --190.155.29.177 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's voluntary it's not necessary to "order" how "might be", and opposition to hierarchy is an anarcho-communist caracteristic, not for all anarchisms (please, you should consult old discussions and consensus about what is anarchism in Wikipedia). Also, it depends of what was the meaning of the words old anachists used, per example, mutualism and anarcho-capitalism are very close between them (that's market anarchism) altought they have used some different words for the same things, but ussually with a libertarian jargon. But and each of them are farest from collectivis forms of anarchism, these ones see themselves like "revolucionaries" and market ones like "pettybourgois" and even "reaccionaries", and also have a close-marxist jargon.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them hold this worldview. Zazaban (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it, but I'm not begining with the exceptions. Anyway I believe we could find a good definition if we try to avoid to consider a part (left-anarchism deffinitions) like the whole or relevant anarchism (a "bad example" of what not to do is the upper IP). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

the difference is this. theres people who sell things on the street, some are even street children. they are participating in a market and are involved in commerce. now lets think about an owner of a corporation. hes also involved in commerce but if one doesnt see the huge difference between the first situation and the second then we cant really have a debate made on rational grounds. mutualism was a position that had influence on artisans and small store owners, meaning non capitalist commerce. and of course it was an anticapitalist movement and it was the primary external influence on benjamin tucker and the other market american anarchists. "anarcho" capitalism is an oxymoron of recent invention and doesn not have any prescence outside the United States (well except aparrently Wendy Mc elroy who is canadian). its academic relevance also is small or null. i imagine Mr. robard might me mentioned sometimes in liberal economics but i think not too much since he hast really made any important contribution to economics and as far as anarchism "anarcho" capitalists (well mostly they are american) seems they dont even act within anarchist organizations.

ive been researching european individualist anarchism. from what ive read all i can say right now is that this article will have to be changed in a big way. ill be coming back to enlarge the european individualist anarchism part. understandably the call for anarchism wituout adjectives emerged. but i dont really think anarchism without adjectives includes inclusion of capitalism propagandists.--Eduen (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tucker supported private ownership of the means of pruduction and use and occupancy in Land - he did not favor “occupancy and use” toward anything else and positively referred even to that as “private property”). But Spooner supported even "sticky" ownership of land). Later Tucker supported private ownership of peaple (children). Tucker supported wage labour]... He said "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." But guys like Konkin supported abolition of wage system (Friedman also want to abolish wage system). Eduen, you are ccouncil communist... Do you know that it is in BIG contradiction with genuine social anarchism? Do you konw that in fact, you are not an anarchist? :) --81.29.30.221 (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes in introduction

As can be seen in the european individualist anarchism section which i will continue to expand, the restriction of the definition of individualist anarchism as pro-market, non communist and worse supposdely being dominated by "anarcho"capitalism or it being pro private property should be corrected. lets try to come to an agreement on how it will look.

now the section that was being developed by Zazaban was taken out without too much explanation. i will collaborate on that since post left anarchism is individualist anarchism with precedents in european currents, strongly influenced by Max Stirner (Bob Black "stirnerist-marxism" for example) critical of organizations like labor unions, anarchosyndycalism and plataformism and in some writers and movements is neo-illegalist. in short all basic points of individualist anarchism. i found a reference in french which classifies hakim bey and bob black as individualist anarchists but that suggest perhaps they dont use in the USA the label individualist anarchist out of fear of association with their conational murray robard fans.--Eduen (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But that anarchism isn't economical individualism, only rethorical, I think. I mean, in the sense that general is understood individualism (free-market and private property). It is not necessary that you use "" to attack an anarchist current. Don`t take personal. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

post left anarchy and post anarchism

It has been suggested that post left anarchy and post anarchism be mentioned here as forms of individualist anarchism. I agree with this move. Both of them put huge emphasis on the individual, and take influence from Max Stirner, among other things. Zazaban (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But are you sure is individualist anarchism? I don't think so, it doesn't propose any individuslit economic, or legal system... (they usually propose the "communa" in Fourier's way, or similar, so they are collectivist or socialist) and neither they consider themselves individualist anarchists. Anyway, almost all anarchisms put emphasis in the individual, and many of them have take some ideas or retoric figures from Stirner (and both things don't make them anarcho-individualists). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of new intro

Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems. Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict between them. Early influences in individualist anarchism were the thought of William Godwin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon (mutualism) and Max Stirner (egoism). From there it expanded throught Europe and the United States. --Eduen (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is very good. Zazaban (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

now we will have to change overview. i will keep expanding european section.--Eduen (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

right now im reading a big essay on individualist anarchism in spain. it mentions Henry David Thoreau as an importan early influence. He is credited as introducing environmentalist and proto-naturist themes which will be important in french and spanish individualist anarchism.

"Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), one of the writers closest to the philosophical movement of trascendentalism, is one of the most well known. His most representative work is Walden which appeared in 1854, even though it was done in 1845 and 1847, when Thoureau decides to install hismself in seclusion in a cabin in the forest, and live in intimate contact with nature, in a live of solitude and sobriety. From this experience, his philosophy tries to communicate the idea of a neccesity of a respectful return to nature, and that hapiness es above all something that comes out of internal wealthand harmony of individuals with their natural environment. Many have seen in Thoureau a precursor of ecology and anarcho-primitivism represented today in john Zerzan. For George Woodcock, this attitude can be also motivated by certain idea of resistence to progress and a rejection of the growing materialism of american society in the middle of the 19th century. (La insumision voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segunda republica (1923-1938).

Im reading this again. later we will see how they were also very concerned with free love themes. It also says that even though benjamin tucker and the other americans did have some influence there, nevertheless the primary influence in spanish individualism was max stirner and french individualist such as han ryner and emile armand.--Eduen (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a native american individualist anarchism that dont' become form Godwin, Proudhon and Stirner, but form Warren and Spooner -with a big Spencer's influence. I believe Eduen contributions to individualist anrchism article aren't representative of the most importa factions of individuslit anarchism (but only what is important to collectivist anarchists). Also, inclusion of factions that don't claim be individualist anarchism are very ensayistic, personal or dark interpretations with irrelevant importance. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the American individualist anarchism was native. It didn't come to be from individualist anarchism spreading to the U.S. from outside. It was born in the U.S. I also agree with what you're saying about Eduen's additions too. Jadabocho (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sources show quite clearly that in the US there was a mix of European influences and North American inventions. By the time anyone actually calls themselves an individualist anarchist, in Tucker's day, the theory of individualist anarchism is a mix of (at least) Owen, Fourier, Spencer, Proudhon, Leroux, Warren, John Gray, Greene, Spooner, Andrews, Ingalls, Godwin, Stirner, Lesigne, free religionism (etc.) We also know that Warren was an influence in England by the 1850s.[2] [3] Max Nettlau's Bibliographie de l'anarchie contains lots of details about the individualist tradition, which could be used to flesh out this article. Probably, the best way to proceed is simply to flesh out the various references that are already here, and then construct an introduction that fits the facts, rather than try to impose an overview up front. All the anarchism entries suffer from the fact that works like Nettlau's bibliography have been pretty well ignored, while "definitions" have been pulled from tertiary sources and partisan accounts. Something like Martin's Men Against the State is a monumental work of scholarship, and Schuster's Native American Anarchism is of importance, but they both have shaping contexts and explicit agendas which can't be ignored (if only because we have to find ways to combine the accounts.) Libertatia (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there were outside influences. That's not what I was denying. I was denying that there were outside ANARCHIST influences. Individualist anarchism arose in America without influence from any anarchists outside America. Even as early as the 1600's there was Anne Hutchinson. It's native to America. And it's not a matter of who "calls themselves an individualist anarchist." What someone calls themselves is not what makes them what they are. Jadabocho (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Anne Hutchinson was not native to America, and even the boldest sources don't claim she was an anarchist. (I had an ancestor at the Aquidneck settlement, so, trust me, if the claim could be made, I would be all over it.) As for the rest, the most the sources will allow you to claim is that Warren (and possibly Spooner) developed an individualist anarchism independent from Proudhon (and possibly Godwin), and that that tradition (or traditions) merged relatively rapidly with the various European individualist traditions in the period from 1849 (Greene's Equality and Warren's reported involvement in mutual banking agitation) through Tucker's embrace of Stirner and incorporation of Lesigne. Libertatia (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No kidding Hutchinson was not native to America. You're still not understanding what I'm saying. She arrived at her anarchist beliefs IN AMERICA. Understand yet? Individualist anarchism was born in America, independent of any individualist anarchism outside America. Thoreau and Warren are a couple other individualist anarchists who had no influence from anarchism outside America. And yes by the way there are indeed sources that say Hutchinson was an anarchist, such as Frederick Baldwin Adams. Radical Literature in America. Overbrook Press. 1939. Another is Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the Law. 2007 where it says "The honor of being the first explicity anarchist in North America belongs to William's successor, a leading religious refugee from Massachusetts, Anne Hutchinson." Your claim that "even the boldest sources don't claim she was an anarchist" just shows how limited your knowledge is of the literature. Next time if I were you I'd be careful before making such claims without checking first. Jadabocho (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That will teach me: never underestimate the boldness of some folks. The quoted passage is actually from Rothbard. (It's best to get attributions right if you're going to talk smack about others' knowledge.) And it is indeed bold, like much of Rothbard's historical work, in its use of unclear, unsourced assertions. But if you apply the standards by which Hutchinson can be considered an anarchist,--and these stretch the term considerably,--then you will find plenty of religious dissenters, and not just in North America, to fit the bill. And you will find that Thoreau's influences in European and Asian philosophy may perhaps now have to fall into the category of "anarchist influences." But your approach is entirely circular anyway: You pick a "birth" of anarchism, and then make a big deal about the fact that there was no outside anarchist influence before there was, by your definitions, an anarchism to influence things. If individualist anarchism was "born" with Warren, and with Spooner, and with Proudhon, and with Godwin, and with Stirner, then perhaps you have a few decades where the individual traditions (none of which were called "individualist anarchism") are discreet, but by the late 1850s, there's already considerable cross-connection, and by the 1890s, "individualist anarchism" is a movement born all over the place, because elements from all the root traditions were synthesized by people like Greene and Tucker. Libertatia (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

She wasn't an anarchist because of religious dissent. She was an anarchist because she explicitly rejected government. She was against the principle of government having any authority over the individual. That's anarchism. As the anarchism article here says "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable." You deny that that was her belief? To respond to your other point, I never said that anarchism in America wasn't influenced by anarchism outside America. I said that the birth, or appearance, of anarchism in America wasn't influenced by anarchism outside America. It was a position conceived of here without any influence by anarchism outside America. It's native to America. It wasn't imported. Understand yet? Jadabocho (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If Anne Hutchinson was an anarchist, it was because she was a Christian radical, a real "antinomian" or "inner light" believer. There is not even a scholarly consensus on that. Rothbard makes a vague claim for something else, so later conversion to "explict" anarchism, but there's no source for it and no explanation of in what sense it is "explicit." Adams does not seem to be referring to anything but her supposed "antinomianism" in his off-hand comment (and it is just that.) The definition you cite might include her, and it would also include any number of others, including various kinds of minarchists and reluctant governmentalists. Let's say we adopt this approach for "individualist anarchism," and define individualist anarchists as "those who think the state is undesirable or worse, and are also individualists." This article should then contain "inner light" Quakers and various other religious radicals who emphasized conscience and self-governance according to "God's laws" (a position, after all, not much different from natural law positions). And there would be no question of excluding the European individualists you have been blithely chopping out of the entry. The "native American" argument is a product of American-exceptionalist historiography, which ignores the existence of the Atlantic community in the colonial period and the extraordinary cosmopolitanism of places like Boston and Cincinnati in the first half of the 19th century. It is fine, since the sources are there, to make specific mention of the handful of relatively isolated individualist anarchists, like Spooner and Warren, but even the North American movement, from the 1850s on, is characterized by an increasing cosmopolitanism. Again, though, the answer is to flesh out the material on those anarchists identified in the sources as individualists, and then the introduction will have to conform to the facts, not the other way around. Libertatia (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? She's explicitly anarchist. The sources are available. She said government was unlawful, it violated natural law, "the unlawfulness of majistry government" in her words. That's anarchism. Now on to your next point. What European individualists have I been "chopping out" of the article? I'm not aware of my deleting any individualist anarchists from the article. Could you name any names? Now on to your final point. Apparently you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying anarchism in America was influenced by anarchism outside America. I'm saying it's ORIGINAL APPEARANCE wasn't influenced by anarchists outside America. For instance, what non-American anarchist had Josiah Warren read? What non-American anarchists had Thoreau read? These people came to the conclusion of anarchism on their own. It's only AFTER anarchism was conceived here that influenced from anarchism outside America came in. I'm not even saying that anarchism didn't exist outside America prior to anyone in America conceiving it. I'm just saying it was conceived here without any anarchist influences from outside America. Have I spelled it out clearly enough for you yet? 18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadabocho (talk • contribs)

Hutchinson is not terribly important here, but let's at least get some facts straight. Rothbard misquoted a hearsay comment from Roger Williams about Hutchinson's belief in the "unlawfulness of magistracy." If there is an explicit statement by Hutchinson herself, Rothbard doesn't seem to have produced it, and I find no confirming citations elsewhere either. The notion of the "unlawfulness of magistracy" had been kicking around for a century or so (at least) when Williams invoked it, in English radical protestant circles. We have no source that shows "explicit" anarchist sentiment, "in her words," as has been claimed. As I said, I'm descended from one of the "antinomians" expelled with Hutchinson, so I would love to learn otherwise, but so far the sources are not convincing. I think the "native American" question has been reduced to the triviality proper to it. We can place it in the article next to the "native French," "native English," etc., versions. And then we can document that "individualist anarchism" rapidly became a cosmopolitan movement transcending any of these isolated "births." Libertatia (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that she rejected the idea of government as having any moral authority to overrule her personal decisions. That's anarchism, philosophical anarchism. The reason I brought up the fact that the origin of anarchism in America wasn't the result of influence of anarchists outside the U.S., is because Eduen placed in the article that it began in France and other countries and then "spread" to the U.S. It's not true. It didn't spread to the U.S. It arose in America independently. I was explaining why I removed that statement from the article. I don't understand why you have such a problem absorbing this. Jadabocho (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by your expanded definition of anarchism, Hutchinson and the faction around her brought their anarchism with them, and anarchism spread as European populations spread. The standard approach is to assume Warren and Spooner knew nothing of Godwin or Proudhon, although, given the coverage of both in the Boston and Cincinnati press, that's almost impossible. My only concern here really is that you have applied this sort of ridiculously broad definition of anarchism and a weak theory of its "native American birth" while making blanket statements about what individualist anarchist is and is not. Libertatia (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, anarchism is "ridiculously broad." If you think the state should be abolished or simply that the state has any moral authority over you, you're an anarchist. This allows for huge diversity among anarchists, which there is obviously is. Benjamin Tucker said "Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else." You may want think of it as some type of exclusive club but it's not. Jadabocho (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, you really need to approach this from a less confrontational angle. And you deleted Illegalism, which I've only ever heard of as being individualist. Not free-market, but individualist all the same. Zazaban (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Libertatia is being confrontational and/or obtuse. If illegalism is individualist anarchism then just find a source for it being so and put it in. What's the problem? If something's not sourced then it shouldn't be in the article. Jadabocho (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[4]. Zazaban (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Page number? Jadabocho (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the source used in the Illegalism article. The mention of individualism is in the second paragraph. Zazaban (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

the reason we changed the introduction is to correct the neoliberal bias that it has. benajmin tucker associated hismelf with socialism. illegalism was antiproperty and communist. produhon was also influential on bakinin and kropotkin and french and spanish individualist anarchism didnt have that much of an interest in economics per se. that is why i proposed that introduction which was as neutral as possible and converged with the definition of individualist anarchism from benjamin tucker and han ryner.

"I believe Eduen contributions to individualist anrchism article aren't representative of the most importa factions of individuslit anarchism (but only what is important to collectivist anarchists)."

benjamin tucker and emile armand were friends. but i dont know what are "the most important factions". as i said before all this american antistate economicistic libertarianism has prescense only in the the USA and even there it seems it doesnt really collaborate at all with the american anarchist movement. it actually seems it collaborates more with the right wing conservative major party Republican Party. emile armand and han ryner visions were as individualist as they could be. the american section i really havent touched although perhaps it is too long.--Eduen (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I don't agree with the accusations of neoliberalism and allegiance to the republican party. I'm not here to be part of a partisan feud. Zazaban (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eduen, here you can't hope we get "afraid" when you mention libertarianism or right wing, we aren't european leftists or progressives :P You don't need to say this one or this other is "heretic", it doesn't matters here, what matters is which are in fact importants. In fact contemporary US anarchisms, and their theories about individualist and libertarian anarchism, are more important or influyent -a lot- for the world than Argentinian or Spanish or French contemporary anarchism (if those exist). That is a fact, doesn't matter if that fact is "morally" wrong for some leftist anarchists.

Note: I'm not American. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

how is it more important? prove it without bringing USA references. but anyway. i want this article to avoid that bias. i dont really want the "anarcho"capitalism and agorism erased or something. it is just that this is biased towards that and thats why i proposed a new introduction but seems you dont want come to an agreement on this.--Eduen (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvius, actually exist references of individualist/libertarian anarchism in some languages. They come from libertarian and austrian economics institutions, publications and theoricians around the world. Theorical development, prestigious, and reivindication of individualist anarchism is stronger here.

You should remember that references should become from specialized publications (like an institutional magazines or investigation articles from recognized theoricals or historicians of individualism or political/philosophical and economical sciences), not from "fanzines", underground authors, or publications specialized in another issues.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PD:Eduen, I don't revert your intro, was another wikipedian that also believes you are wrong (but I agree with the revert).--Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegalism

Illegalism should go under Egoism, since this is simply Stirnerite individualist anarchism in practice. Zazaban says it should be under French individualist anarchism because he says it's generally associated with France. Does he have a source that it's generally assocatiated with France? Jadabocho (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that it is generally French. All the names listed are french, and it is mostly a fusion of egoism and french propaganda of the deed bandits (this is coming from the Illegalism article). Also, aesthetically it looks better there than under egoism. Zazaban (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. Just because the names listed are French, doesn't mean that most illegalists were French. It could be that the person who put this entry in neglected to list the others. So you don't have a source for it. I disagree that it "looks better" then under Egoism. Under egoism is where it should be because these people are Stirnerites. Jadabocho (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Post left anarchism

The source being used to claim Post left anarchism is individualist anarchism is an article someone posted on a website insurgentdesireuk.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I don't think that source meets that criteria. Moreover it doesn't even say that it's individualist anarchism. It just says it has an "individualist foundation." I've seen anarcho-communists claim that of their philosophy too, but it doesn't make it individualist anarchism. If post left anarchism is going to be portrayed as individualist anarchism then it needs a reliable source. Jadabocho (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Page is too long

and this is clearly because of its overemphasis on "the american traditions" and the exageration on the extension on the metaphysical description of "anarcho" capitalism and agorism. i proposed before making a separate page of individualist anarchism in the USA . that will also help correcting the USA bias.--Eduen (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

i helped correcting this by making a smaller and less biased globalized introduction but if Nihilo doesnt want to collaborate on this?--Eduen (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

allright. i made Individualist anarchism in the United States. now in order to take of the banner calling for a global vision we need to change "overview" and add more links realting to european individualism.--Eduen (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this started out really good, but now it's parading off into the looney bin and I'm scared it's not going to come back. The overview is just a parroting of Murray Bookchin, and the American tradition section was essentially POV-forked. I'm all for widening the focus, but I'm not for little partisan feuds, which this seems to be turning into. I do agree that the stuff on the american tradition may go too in depth for a summary article though, but not with what was essentially its complete removal. Zazaban (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Eduen is not clear about POV, I don't trust his editions are enough enciclopedicals. They seems to be a little partisan agenda with ensayistic issues. Excuse me, but I feel this like a deliberated "war", and I don't like it. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very POV. He opens the article with a criticism of individualism by a very large quote by Bookchin. Then he ignores, or is unaware of, the "undue weight" policy by chopping down American individualist anarchism down to only a few sentences, when it's that version of individualist anarchism that is the most talked about in the literature. Jadabocho (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that one. The deletion of the american tradition and the Bookchin quotes were uncalled for. Also, I'd like to ask why some of my edits were reverted as well? Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I revert to last edition of Jadabocho for work again the article, before the essay attempt of Eduen. I apologize for the inconvenience. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm trying to salvage what can be salvaged. I've been looking over it, and most of Eduen's contributions could probably be kept with some rewordings and a few more sources, which shouldn't be too hard to find. It's mostly just sloppy. Zazaban (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

well, i lament that you got annoyed but there was this message that said the page was too long. the usa part was the cause of it and it is a usual suggestion of wikipedia to make separate and more specific pages for parts where theres a lot of information. but now if nihilo accuses me of having a political agenda well, hes trying to play innocent while hes clearly a neoliberal with a neoliberal agenda. in order to avoid this "war" we will have to come to an agreement and nihilo doesnt want it. he doesnt want to recognize anticapitalist and antiproperty individualist anarchism. he wants to keep this page USA and neoliberalism centric and when he makes editions he doesnt explain why he does that and just does it. anyway i find that people here thought i took out the USA part because i wanted to leave it like that. well what i expected is that someone will come and make small sections for it but the way it was was too much too long.

the part of italian individualism i dont knwo why nihilo erased it. individualist anarchism in italy manifested itself in magnicides. this is not my personal opinion and thats why i referenced it. why are we having this explicit attempt to censor a part of individualist anarchism? i recognize that theres neoliberals calling themselves individualists anarchists and they should recognize anticapitalist individualist anarchism. this is the agreement we should come to. and looking at the history of nihilo, he has had problems with other people in other articles because of this dogmatism of his and hes been already sanctioned for vandalism more than once.

now, the reason for putting the murray bookchin citation i found it summarized the history of individualist anarchism well. i didnt really found it offensive because it got the facts right. individualist anarchism manifested itself in bohemian and experimental lifestyles and insurrectionary illegalism . i hope we are not trying to keep the page puritan. i put it there thinking it was good until we could write a not biased and accurate overview part. the current overview part is not accurate. it makes one think individualist anarchism is mostly antistate neoliberalism and that individualist anarchists are people obssesed with economics or university teachers of economics and that they dont care about individual liberties and personal subjective exploration as well as individual resistance againts the current social system based on capitalism and state. because of that it doesnt even do justice to mutualism and the "boston anarchists" and lets not speak of european individualist anarchism. anyway nihilo is still invited to prove "anarcho"capitalism is present outside of the USA besides wendy mcelroy and obviously him since he said hes not american.

because of this the murray bookchin citation was a thousand times better even if it critizised individualist anarchism. and now whats Gustave de Molinari doing in this article? he didnt have any connection with anarchism in his life and thats why hes associated with a liberal group of economists of france.

now to end up i suggest everyone here to try to come to an agreement, if not i dont see an exit out of this.

nihilo says "I believe Eduen is not clear about POV, I don't trust his editions are enough enciclopedicals." well. we might have to accept people are not innocent beings always looking for neutrality and without a personal history and desires and passions. this doesnt mean people dont come to agreements and stop "wars".--Eduen (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop accusing people of being neoliberals, you are alienating yourself and the accusation is simply not true. Also, I thought the Bookchin quote was fine in itself, but the fact that it was the only thing there that was not so great. Zazaban (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nihilo. please stop erasing the part that says mutualism is anticapitalist. it is referenced by two sources with citations . if you keep doing this i will accuse you of vandalism.--Eduen (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

we keep getting this message "This page is 53 kilobytes long." we have to reduce the USA part.--Eduen (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

also why cant we accept the smaller and not biased introduction that i proposed. someone keeps posting the biased introduction. please justify this action or else it will appear as mere whim.--Eduen (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bookchin quote.

I'm not sure what's so wrong with it. It isn't really critical, it simply seems like a description of the state of individualist anarchism at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. I don't see how it is undue weight or POV when it is with the other stuff as well. Zazaban (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that main problem is that it's too much space given to just one guy's viewpoint. That makes it undue weight. Bookchin is critical of individualist anarchism. He's trying to to make it look bad. If you doubt that he's very much opposed to it read, his article Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin . And what is he talking about individualist anarchists in the U.S. committing acts of terrorism? I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe if there was some other sources to back that up. But just this one guy giving him all this weight is not justified. Jadabocho (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, that part needs to go, it could be shorter. But most of the other stuff actual almost seemed positive to me. But that's just me. Zazaban (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

it gives facts. in order to critizice something seriously you have to give facts. anyway as i said before i meant it to be a temporary solution until we can write a better overview. right now what is visible is too much concentrated on economics and american individualism. thats why it must be changed. parts of the bookchin essay could be used for references but as you could see the bookchin essay shows individualist anarchism is very intrested in personal subjective exploration and seems also they continue something Henry davi thoureau wanted. now anarchist terrorism in the USA did happen when italian anarchists moved to places like new york such as important illegalist Luigi Galleani. he and his group adhered to the italian insurrectionary currents who emphasized propaganda by the deed and critizised organization just as any of the individualist currents.

now i hope we leave the current non biased introduction. if not i dont think we could come up with an agreement. i will try to write some basic points of individualist anarchism suported on sources such as the essay on spanish individualist anarchism who also considers the influence of benjamin tucker and of course other sources. right now whats visible, as i said before, makes one think individualist anarchism is some sort of american liberal economics sect. the bookchin essay (an american by the way) shows individualist anarchism wasnt that way.--Eduen (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of new "Overview" section

Individualist anarchism of different kinds have a few things in common. These are:

1. The concentration and elevation on the individual and his/her over any kind of social or exterior reality or construction such as morality, ideology, social custom, religion, metaphysics, ideas or the will of others.

2. The rejection or reservations on the idea of revolution seeing it as a time of mass uprising which could bring about new hierarchies. Instead they favor more evolutionary methods of bringing about anarchy through alternative experiences and experiments and education which could be brought about today. This also because it is not seen desirable for individuals the fact of having to wait for revolution to start experiencing alternative experiences outside what is offered in the current social system.

3. The view that relationships with other persons or things can only be of one´s own interest and can be as transitory and without compromises as desired since in individualist anarchism sacrifice is usually rejected. In this way Max Stirner recoomended associations of egoists. Individual experience and exploration therefore is emphazised.

As such differences exist. In regards to economic questions there are adherents to mutualism (Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Emile Armand, Benjamin Tucker), egoistic disrespect for "ghosts" such as private property and markets (Max Stirner), and adherents to anarcho-communism (Albert Libertad, illegalism).

An important tendency within individualist anarchist currents emphasizes individual subjective exploration and defiance of social conventions. As such Murray Bookchin describes a lot of individualist anarchism as people who "expressed their opposition in uniquely personal forms, especially in fiery tracts, outrageous behavior, and aberrant lifestyles in the cultural ghettos of fin de sicle New York, Paris, and London. As a credo, individualist anarchism remained largely a bohemian lifestyle, most conspicuous in its demands for sexual freedom ('free love') and enamored of innovations in art, behavior, and clothing.". In this way free love currents (Emile Armand) and other radical lifestyles such as naturism had popularity among individualist anarchists.

so there i leave it for all of you to consider it and propose changes and/or additions.

--Eduen (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite good. I like it. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Again an Eduen's essay, I delete bad resources -geocities (!) and communists refferences like Infoshop FAQ-, "fanzine"'s inclution of an ideologgical non-individualist phenomenon (also, there is a big confussion between "violent means" with "illegalism"). I try to correct the deliberated exclusion of schoolar and especialized 'individualist' resources, and the exclussion of market anarchism like the principal form of anarcho-individualism, that exclussion made an incoherence between previous refferences with new text. I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ensayistic is not a word. Your explanations of why you delete things are often very vague. I'm not sure what you think an essay is, either. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean, schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones. Many of the parts I delete are interpetations, about not so relevant issues, and even with important errors. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask, where are the refferences to books about individualist anarchism? (eg. The Debates of Liberty: An Overview of Individualist Anarchism, 1881-1908, Men against the State: The expositors of individualist anarchism in America, 1827-1908, The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism, The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908), Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice), why to prefer self-published websites?. Another thing, In the resume I list some of the mistakes I found. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There were sources showing the illegalism was a form of individualist anarchism, your claim otherwise is your own opinion, which is contradicted by sources. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wich schoolar, especialized and relevant source? Is it gennerally aceptted, or is an original claim of only one publication or one non-especiallized publication? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's generally accepted- I've never heard it called anything but individualism. Peter Kropotkin referenced it as the very stereotype of individualism. Zazaban (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anarcho-individualism like a political doctrine, and anarcho-individualist society?, or only a kind of collectivist anarchist -quasi-communist- with "individual actions"? An acredited source please, illegalism seems anarcho-communism without class war strategy.

Out of that item, I continue asking why don't use especialized sources like the books I mention? Why put in an upper degree self-published websites? Why you change the importance of some currents (to most important to the bottom)? Why revert my corrections (I delete a lot of ideological, historical mistakes and POV, that other users already noted and why you putted that mistakes again)? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nihilo 01. Please read Wikipedia’s policy on sources (specially subsections on questionable and self-published sources). -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

this articles had a problem with not having a global world view of this subject. And Nihilo´s sources all happen to concentrate on the United states version(s) of individualist anarchism. Now theres a problem here if Nihilo doesnt want to accept sources in other languages and from other parts.

"schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones"

i understand the USA phenomenon "anarcho"capitalism as other types of neoliberalism manifests itself in university economists and think tanks. Individualist anarchism as a part of the anarchist movement expressed itself in things similar to what today is called fanzines. Now the article called La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segund arepública (1923-1938) is as academic and "scholarly" as you can ask anything to be and it exists in book form. Now if it happens not to be of the taste of economicistic american neoliberalism, thats different. The point here is to make a balanced article and as nihilo wants it, this is a USA centered article which makes one think individualist anarchists are americans neoliberal economists. How does that correspond to people like Renzo Novatore or free love propagandist Emile Armand or Max Stirner or Albert Libertad or the people of the Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico in Barcelona . Emile Armand if he resembles something today is definitely not economics professors and yuppies but perhaps hippies. Vision_Thing, i see you collaborate in WikiProject Economics. Maybe you should get acquainted with that book on spanish individualist anarchism or this list of sources on european individualist anarchism all very academic written by college proffesors [5]. Theres one thats called STEINER, Anne. Les En-dehors. Anarchistes individualistes et illégalistes à la « Belle époque which deals with french individualist anarchism as it evolved in magazines, alternative communes and groups and things like illegalism. Nihilo wants to censor illegalism. One thing is that "anarcho" capitalism loves private property and another is that all individualist anarchism is "anarcho" capitalism. In fact "anarcho" capitalism is a USA phenomenon and to most anarchists it cant be an anarchism at all. But anyway i was referencing the article/book on spanish individualist anarchism and the written works of people like Han Ryner. And so Benjamin Tucker happened to be a good friend with Emile Armand. In this way it is very likely that both will have united in denouncing something like "anarcho" capitalism as not being anarchist at all. Both Emile Armand and Tucker were mutualists and that shows the problem here is showing individualist anarchism as a whole and that there cannot be in a balanced article the preeminence of the vision of a singular version on individualist anarchism as adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism such as nihilo or Vision Thing (as can be seen in his personal wikipedia page) might want. I mean if wikipedia was "my property" i will erase the articles on fascism and "anarcho" capitalism. Since this is not the case in my editions i never erased totally the sections that mention "anarcho" capitalism.

If we cant come to an agreement on this we will not advance in writing a balanced article. We can have a decent article also if we avoid riducolous autoritarian ranting such as "I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines." Nihilo. Nihilo is sounding here like if us voluntary collaborators are his salaried employees. Since this is not the case (although something thats perfectly fine with "anarcho"capitalism) we have to come to an agreement. And as what i can see from the discussion page of Nihilo, he seems to have been blocked from editing in Wikipedia many times to really think he is someone reliable for preffering reason and agreements instead of edit wars, whim and dogmatism. From his talk page "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Inclusive Democracy. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry."--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming Emile Armand was a mutualist. Do you have a source for this? Jadabocho (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Armand's own "Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity," accessible in English on Dana Ward's website, invokes "mutualism" as the basis of relations. The "Amis de E. Armand" repeated this in 1944, in their "Principal Tendencies and Theses of the “L’Unique” Center." Libertatia (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The RAForum site is the work of Ronald Creagh, among the most important French anarchist academics, and the author of a very good book on the American individualists. Creagh's inclusion of folks like Novatore and Ryner in the category of individualist anarchists ought to be good enough for Wikipedia, particularly since the primary sources are pretty unequivocal in this case. There's a whole French mutualist tradition that is also absent here, starting from people like Alfred Darimon and J. A. Langlois, who collaborated with Proudhon and stretching up through people like Joseph Perrot, who signed himself "a disciple of Proudhon" and was an orthodox interpreter, and Edmond Lagarde, author of La revanche de Proudhon: ou, l'avenir du socialisme mutuelliste. Libertatia (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's not Proudhonian mutualism. I'm not aware of Emile Armand subscribing to a labor theory of value of any sort, as in any labor value exploitation theory. I think the source is using "mutualism" in a very loose sense. Jadabocho (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "labor theory of value" requirement for mutualism is largely something cooked up by its critics. Proudhonian mutualism, like the mutualism of the Lyons weavers, was first and foremost a matter of reciprocity. Kevin Carson has demonstrated what a non-issue the LTV-STV issue really is for mutualists, and the highly subjectivized notion of labor cost in Josiah Warren's work is also well-established here. In any event, a quick search demonstrates the obvious, that Armand's sympathy for illegalism was based in a critique of labor exploitation. From "Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?:" "It is by design that the illegalist anarchist addresses himself to his comrade who is exploited by a boss..." Etc. Libertatia (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Proudhonian mutualists had a labor theory of value. If "mutualism" is simply reciprocity, then capitalists are mutualists too, because it's people trading amongst each other for mutual gain. It's more than that. They have a labor exploitation theory based on the belief that a capitalist can steal the "full value" of the individual's labor, which is based on Marxist the surplus value theory (not that Marx was the only one, or the original one, to have this theory). Josiah Warren had the the same belief, that person was stealing the value from another person's labor if he wasn't trading them an equivalent supply of his own labor. Unless a person has a belief like they're not adherents to the doctrine of "Mutualism." So do you have a source for Armand believing anything like this? Also there is the issue of ownership of land, that we know to be a part of Mutualism where the Mutualists believes that a person can't own land but only use it. Any source for that? Jadabocho (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)