Who's your preferred anarchist?

[ComradeMan]

I would have put these in the other poll, but I find the term "anarchist leader" a bit of a problem!:)

[Havet]

Hey seems quite some people are mising here. What about:

-Proudhon?
-Benjamin Tucker?
-Voltairine de Cleyre?
-Max Stirner?
-William Godwin?
-Johann Most?
-Rudolf Rocker?
-Lucy Parsons?
-Dora Marsden?

I'd choose Voltairine de Cleyre, btw.

[ComradeMan]

Well, I couldn't put them all on there so I chose an "even spread". I also wanted to avoid the very early "thinkers" as well.

-Proudhon?
No, wasn't really such a good anarchist afterall.:D
-Max Stirner?
Too early- too much association with other other philosophies too. I avoided the individualists as well.;)
-

[Havet]

-Proudhon?
No, wasn't really such a good anarchist afterall.

Why wasn't he a "good anarchist"?


I avoided the individualists as well.;)

I see that, but why (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html)?

[ComradeMan]

Why wasn't he a "good anarchist"?



I see that, but why (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html)?

Proudhon went back on a lot of his own stuff. He was also a racist and anti-Semite.
"In 1847 he considered publishing an article against the Jewish race, which he said he "hated". The proposed article would have "called for the expulsion of the Jews from France... The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Heinrich_Heine), A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Rothschild_family), Crémieux (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cr%C3%A9mieux), Marx (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Marx), Fould (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Fould&action=edit&redlink=1), evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us." (Carnets, vol. 2, p. 337: No VI, 178)"

He also proposed things like compulsory military service and basically did not practise what he preached. In my opinion he wrote one good article and that's it.

As for individualism, smacks too much of lifestylism and is anti-democratic.
Metzer called into question whether it be justly called anarchism at all.

[Havet]

Proudhon went back on a lot of his own stuff. He was also a racist and anti-Semite.
"In 1847 he considered publishing an article against the Jewish race, which he said he "hated". The proposed article would have "called for the expulsion of the Jews from France... The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Heinrich_Heine), A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Rothschild_family), Crémieux (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cr%C3%A9mieux), Marx (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Marx), Fould (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Fould&action=edit&redlink=1), evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us." (Carnets, vol. 2, p. 337: No VI, 178)"

Well that's a personal opinion (although an irrational one), i don't see how this nullifies his contributions to the political sciences..


He also proposed things like compulsory military service and basically did not practise what he preached. In my opinion he wrote one good article and that's it.

Maybe we should look at all the others and see if they practiced what they preached too, no?


As for individualism, smacks too much of lifestylism and is anti-democratic.
Metzer called into question whether it be justly called anarchism at all.

Care to go into some detail here?

[Ovi]

I'd choose Voltairine de Cleyre, btw.
I'm glad to see that your favorite anarchist dropped individualism for being incompatible with freedom :lol:
Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notions of freedom.
http://www.panarchy.org/voltairine/anarchism.html

[RGacky3]

I would pick Eugene Debs, not an Anarchist, but in my opinion, one of the most sincere American socialist in history.

[Havet]

I'm glad to see that your favorite anarchist dropped individualism for being incompatible with freedom :lol:
Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notions of freedom.
http://www.panarchy.org/voltairine/anarchism.html

She may have said that she dropped individualism, but she certainly still had a very strong opinion formed on individualistic anarchism.

"My ideal would be a condition in which all natural resources would be forever free to all, and the worker individually able to produce for himself sufficient for all his vital needs, if he so chose, so that he needs not govern his working or not working by the times and seasons of his fellows. I think that time may come; but it will only be through the development of the modes of production and the taste of the people. Meanwhile we all cry with one voice for the freedom to try."

Also, see this little confrontation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125) she imagined between an individualist and a communist.

[Ovi]

She may have said that she dropped individualism, but she certainly still had a very strong opinion formed on individualistic anarchism.

Not really. That was in 1893, when she believed in individualism. Here's what she wrote in 1897 (http://praxeology.net/VC-WIA.htm)

Second: – I concluded that as to the question of exchange and money, it was so exceedingly bewildering, so impossible of settlement among the professors themselves, as to the nature of value, and the representation of value, and the unit of value, and the numberless multiplications and divisions of the subject, that the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organize their industry so as to get rid of money altogether. I figured it this way: I’m not any more a fool than the rest of ordinary humanity; I’ve figured and figured away on this thing for years, and directly I thought myself middling straight, there came another money reformer and showed me the hole in that scheme, till, at last , it appears that between “bills of credit,” and “labor notes” and “time checks,” and “mutual bank issues,” and “the invariable unit of value,” none of them have any sense. How many thousands of years is it going to get this sort of thing into people’s heads by mere preaching of theories. Let it be this way: Let there be an end of the special monopoly on securities for money issues. Let every community go ahead and try some member’s money scheme if it wants; – let every individual try it if he pleases. But better for the working people let them all go. Let them produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternize group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises

[Ovi]

The hope was doomed to disappointment; within three months the glorious rebel fell. She had called, but the response did not come. Why? Because she had not asked enough. Because making war upon the State, she had not made war upon that which creates the State, that to preserve which the State exists. With the scrupulous, pitiful Conscience which Authority has cunningly bred in men, the Commune had respected property; had kept its enemy's books, and duly handed over the balances; had starved itself to feed its foes; had left common resources in private hands

In short, though there were other reasons why the Commune fell, the chief one was that in the hour of necessity, the Communards were not Communists. They attempted to break political chains without breaking economic ones; and it cannot be done.
The Commune is Risen, 1912 (http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/archive/The_Commune_is_Risen)

Thanks for the insight. I think Voltairine de Cleyre's work is something worth reading.

[Havet]

Not really. That was in 1893, when she believed in individualism. Here's what she wrote in 1897 (http://praxeology.net/VC-WIA.htm)

Second: – I concluded that as to the question of exchange and money, it was so exceedingly bewildering, so impossible of settlement among the professors themselves, as to the nature of value, and the representation of value, and the unit of value, and the numberless multiplications and divisions of the subject, that the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organize their industry so as to get rid of money altogether. I figured it this way: I’m not any more a fool than the rest of ordinary humanity; I’ve figured and figured away on this thing for years, and directly I thought myself middling straight, there came another money reformer and showed me the hole in that scheme, till, at last , it appears that between “bills of credit,” and “labor notes” and “time checks,” and “mutual bank issues,” and “the invariable unit of value,” none of them have any sense. How many thousands of years is it going to get this sort of thing into people’s heads by mere preaching of theories. Let it be this way: Let there be an end of the special monopoly on securities for money issues. Let every community go ahead and try some member’s money scheme if it wants; – let every individual try it if he pleases. But better for the working people let them all go. Let them produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternize group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises

The hope was doomed to disappointment; within three months the glorious rebel fell. She had called, but the response did not come. Why? Because she had not asked enough. Because making war upon the State, she had not made war upon that which creates the State, that to preserve which the State exists. With the scrupulous, pitiful Conscience which Authority has cunningly bred in men, the Commune had respected property; had kept its enemy's books, and duly handed over the balances; had starved itself to feed its foes; had left common resources in private hands

In short, though there were other reasons why the Commune fell, the chief one was that in the hour of necessity, the Communards were not Communists. They attempted to break political chains without breaking economic ones; and it cannot be done.
The Commune is Risen, 1912 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/archive/The_Commune_is_Risen)

Thanks for the insight. I think Voltairine de Cleyre's work is something worth reading.

Interesting find. I especially like the bolded part.

I'll be reading the Commune is risen, though.

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky. He's one of the few anarchists today who gives anarchism an intelligent and reasonable face, and he ignores a lot of the ridiculous disputes in anarchism. He provies good analysis of modern societal problems, like capitalism.

dsXBhfxv-iw

Notice how he says in the beginning "democrats and libertarians" and then discusses their fear of a managed aristocarcy, corporate power, worker-manager relationships, and so on, as at one point democrats and libertarians could easily have been said to go together (the earlist libertarians favored democracy).

The Libertarian movement sure has gone downhill since the 1800s hasn't it?

[Skooma Addict]

I would have to say Bryan Caplan and Peter Leeson.

[IcarusAngel]

He obviously meant left anarchists (real anarchists) not pretend anarchists who are actually corporatists and oppose 90% of anarchist doctrine.

Also, each of those anarchists represent certain sects of left anarchism, chomsky and zinn would be syndicalists.

[Skooma Addict]

He obviously meant left anarchists (real anarchists) not pretend anarchists who are actually corporatists and oppose 90% of anarchist doctrine.

Also, each of those anarchists represent certain sects of left anarchism, chomsky and zinn would be syndicalists.

Why are so called left-anarchists the only real anarchists?

[Havet]

Why are so called left-anarchists the only real anarchists?

Because IcarusAngel said so, dummy

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Also, each of those anarchists represent certain sects of left anarchism, chomsky and zinn would be syndicalists.
Is Zinn a syndicalist? I'd not heard that before.

Why are so called left-anarchists the only real anarchists?
Because the others are obviously corporatists who oppose 90% of anarchism.

[Skooma Addict]

Because the others are obviously corporatists who oppose 90% of anarchism.

Well since they aren't corporatists, I assume it follows that they don't oppose 90% of anarchism.

[Zanthorus]

Definitely Durruti.


In my opinion he wrote one good article and that's it.

I think he had at least two or three good works. ("What Is Property?", "The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th century" and a pamphlet he wrote on the subject of the state which contains one of my favourite quotes: "...the only way to organize democratic government is to abolish government.")


Why are so called left-anarchists the only real anarchists?

Because they're the only ones who consistently oppose authority.

[Skooma Addict]

Because they're the only ones who consistently oppose authority.

They do not oppose all forms of authority. I do not know a single person who does. One can make the argument that anarchism traces back to Zhuangzi. The so called "left-anarchists" do not have a monopoly on the name.

[Zanthorus]

They do not oppose all forms of authority. I do not know a single person who does. One can make the argument that anarchism traces back to Zhuangzi. The so called "left-anarchists" do not have a monopoly on the name.

We don't oppose all authority. But when the need for organisation does come around we prefer democracy to market tyranny.

And by the way, yes left-anarchists do have a monopoly on the term. Left-anarchism has been involved in mass movements the world over while all anarcho-capitalism has done is partially help set up a shitty quasi-fascist political party that completely abandoned them 4 years ago.

[Skooma Addict]

We don't oppose all authority. But when the need for organisation does come around we prefer democracy to market tyranny.

And by the way, yes left-anarchists do have a monopoly on the term. Left-anarchism has been involved in mass movements the world over while all anarcho-capitalism has done is partially help set up a shitty quasi-fascist political party that completely abandoned them 4 years ago.

I don't want to get into an argument over this. Suffice is to say that no good reason has been given why only left-anarchists are real anarchists. Getting involved with mass movements does not mean anything other than your politically active.

[RGacky3]

The so called "left-anarchists" do not have a monopoly on the name.

You can call yourself whatever you want, I can call my self a doctor too, but considering the vast majority of people who call themselves doctors would call my stupid for calling myself that, and considering that the general consensus of the definition of being a doctor concludes I am no one, it would be kind of silly.

So again, the anarcho-capitalists can call themselves anarchists if they want, but its silly.

[ComradeMan]

Well that's a personal opinion (although an irrational one), i don't see how this nullifies his contributions to the political sciences..



Maybe we should look at all the others and see if they practiced what they preached too, no?



Care to go into some detail here?


Hayen, I think his personal opinion and his later actions were enough to convince most that he was not a great anarchist. I mean, Mein Kampf was mostly Hitler's personal opinion wasn't it? We are not dealing with one or two off the cuff remarks here either- it is pretty disgusting what he said isn't it? He didn't produce a weight of material either to even counterbalance it if you like. He wrote some important stuff and that's it, but inasmuch as Kropotkin is accused of betraying the cause I think Proudhon was decidedly dodgy- perhaps Kropotkin was more sincere too- albeit misguidedly.

Re individualists, well, I think the others have answered that question fully.

[IcarusAngel]

Keep in mind that Olaf's viewpoints are coming from Rothbard. The claim that Taoism represents anarcho-capitalism is generally not taken seriously. For example, the Tao also warns against competition, says people should solve problems by ignoring them (such as if someone steal's from you), and says that people should not hold positions. People who own possessions are known as "bandit chiefs" in the book, who are a far cry from the way.

Also, many scholars believe that the Tao was advice to the people who ruled states themselves. So the advice about states "doing nothing" may have been applicable to the international spectrum. Certainly Tao wouldn't have held that property should be protected as even personal property doesn't exist in Taoism.

Like confucianism, it seeks to maintain an equilibrium within society. There is basically nothing in the Tao-te-ching that indicades an anarcho-capitalist society.

By not including those facts, Rothbard - an "economist" who strugged with even elementary mathematics - proves his intellectual dishonesty, and there is a good chance he never had even read the Tao te ching.

[ComradeMan]

Keep in mind that Olaf's viewpoints are coming from Rothbard. The claim that Taoism represents anarcho-capitalism is generally not taken seriously. For example, the Tao also warns against competition, says people should solve problems by ignoring them (such as if someone steal's from you), and says that people should not hold positions. People who own possessions are known as "bandit chiefs" in the book, who are a far cry from the way.

Good point, didn't know that! :thumbup:

As for people calling themselves names, well, I suppose it does depend- but we have to be careful too. The nazis were "national socialists" afterall...

[Manifesto]

What about Kropotkin, Berkman, Bookchin or even Rocker? Just saying never even heard of the last three on the list.

[Skooma Addict]

Keep in mind that Olaf's viewpoints are coming from Rothbard. The claim that Taoism represents anarcho-capitalism is generally not taken seriously. For example, the Tao also warns against competition, says people should solve problems by ignoring them (such as if someone steal's from you), and says that people should not hold positions. People who own possessions are known as "bandit chiefs" in the book, who are a far cry from the way.

Also, many scholars believe that the Tao was advice to the people who ruled states themselves. So the advice about states "doing nothing" may have been applicable to the international spectrum. Certainly Tao wouldn't have held that property should be protected as even personal property doesn't exist in Taoism.

Like confucianism, it seeks to maintain an equilibrium within society. There is basically nothing in the Tao-te-ching that indicades an anarcho-capitalist society.

By not including those facts, Rothbard - an "economist" who strugged with even elementary mathematics - proves his intellectual dishonesty, and there is a good chance he never had even read the Tao te ching.

What are you talking about?

[ComradeMan]

What about Kropotkin, Berkman, Bookchin or even Rocker? Just saying never even heard of the last three on the list.

Kropotkin was left off because of the debacle with his stance on the First World War.

Berkman was the partner of Goldman, so I sort of thought their views would be "two of the same" if you follow me?

Rudolf Rocker- well, I couldn't put them all on there so I wanted a spread. Chomsky is up there for anarcho-syndicalism.

Bookchin- I had my doubts about where to put him and wanted to avoid a big debate about social ecology, libertarian socialism and anarchism.

Daniel Guérin
Daniel Guérin (May 19, 1904-April 14, 1988) was a French Socialist and author, best known for his work Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, as well as his collection No Gods No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism in which he collected writings on the idea and movement it inspired, from the first writings of Max Stirner in the mid-19th century through the first half of the 20th century. He is also known for his opposition to Nazism, fascism and colonialism, in addition to his support for the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) during the Spanish Civil War, and his revolutionary defence of free love and homosexuality (he was bisexual).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Guerin

Pietro Gori
Pietro Gori (14 August 1865 - 8 January 1911) was an Italian lawyer, journalist, intellectual and anarchist poet. He is known for his political activities, and as author of some of the most famous anarchist songs of the late 19th century, including Addio a Lugano ("Farewell to Lugano"), Stornelli d'esilio ("Exile Songs"), Ballata per Sante Caserio ("Ballad for Sante Geronimo Caserio").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Gori


Uri Gordon
Uri Gordon (born August 30, 1976) is an Israeli anarchist theorist and activist. He is a lecturer at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in Ketura, Israel. One of several anarchist theorists to come of age during the anti-globalization movement at the turn of the twenty-first century, he has worked with anarchist and radical movements including Indymedia, Peoples' Global Action, and Anarchists Against the Wall. Active primarily in Britain and his native Israel, Gordon has participated in protests at international summits across Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Gordon

[Manifesto]

^^^ Ok thanks for answering that.

[Bud Struggle]

:thumbup:RGacky's my favorite Anarchist! :thumbup:

Apathy Maybe--second

And TAT--third.

[Robert]

Rothbard - an "economist" who strugged with even elementary mathematicsFor real? I don't really care one way or the other, but wiki claims Rothbard got a Bachelors in math and economics from Columbia, and then a PhD in economics, also from Columbia. Columbia is reportedly among the top 10 (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-economics-schools/rankings) universities in the USA for economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

Are you sure about this damning claim as to Rothbard's capabilities in "elementary mathematics," Icarus?

[StalinFanboy]

Ew so much Chomsky losers :(

Malatesta fo' real.

[Havet]

For real? I don't really care one way or the other, but wiki claims Rothbard got a Bachelors in math and economics from Columbia, and then a PhD in economics, also from Columbia. Columbia is reportedly among the top 10 (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-economics-schools/rankings) universities in the USA for economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

Are you sure about this damning claim as to Rothbard's capabilities in "elementary mathematics," Icarus?

EDIT: Indeed it seems, once again, that Icarus just makes up his statements as he goes along without ever showing evidence to support his "logical anti-cult" theories.

[Uppercut]

I agree with Chomsky on that there is a lot of unnecessary authority in capitalist society. I know I'm a maoist, but I don't see the need to have cops everywhere. If we are going to have police, I think the people (including the students) should have some sort of safeguard against police brutality. Just look at the Cultural Revolution. The masses could overthrow oppression in society, schools, government, etc.

I would like to see that in America.

[IcarusAngel]

Consider their late "dean," Murray Rothbard. I met him at each of the LvMI conferences I attended, and could see he was very intelligent and well read. I enjoyed his sense of humor. But it was also clear he often had no idea what he was talking about, and was, well, crazy. For example, at the 1989 conference he discussed graphical representations of demand curves, and pointed out that the textbook standard had once been the constant elasticity demand curve, until someone (Stigler, I believe) drew a linear demand curve, which became the new standard. As Rothbard correctly observed, it doesn’t really matter how they are drawn, since all are simply heuristic tools, rather than exact representations of reality. Good point.

However, at the 1990 conference, he was drawing "realistic" demand curves, and insisting that the only proper way to draw them was as an irregular step function, taking special care to be sure there was no perfectly elastic portion, which would be "impossible." I thought this was a bit mad. Never mind that the continuous demand curve he drew necessarily assumes an infinitely divisible good, in violation of his own strictures concerning utility theory. Who cares that it’s "more realistic?" This curve tells us nothing different than a constant-elasticity or linear curve does, and none of them are "realistic," nor can they be. And they are useful nevertheless. During one of our evening discussion groups, Roger Garrison incredulously asked if any of us students really thought anything was gained by drawing the demand curve Rothbard-style. None of us did, nor did Garrison. Rothbard’s insistence on it made no sense, but is typical of the strange and unthinking economic "realism" sometimes seen with the Mises Institute.

On this note, consider the lengthy exchange between Block and Hulsmann of LvMI, and Bryan Caplan of George Mason. Caplan argued that Austrians are guilty of a false realism that is really quite unrealistic. Block and Hulsmann responded, and in the course of the debate began attacking neoclassical utility maximization for dividing and multiplying "incommensurate quantities." A condition for utility maximization is that MUX/PX = MUY/PY, but MU is measured in some sort of utility units (utils) and P is price, measured in monetary units. Since the units of measure are different, the units cannot be divided, argued our intrepid Mises Institute scholars. Hulsmann went on to give the example of a rabbit divided by a piano concerto, a supposed reductio ad absurdum.

Very funny, particularly since it illustrates that Block and Hulsmann failed to understand 3rd grade math. Caplan was incredulous. Miles per hour, anyone? (That’s 1.61Km/hr for my European readers, NV.) I kind of like the rabbits per concerto idea myself, although it’s unclear whether we’re taking the rabbits to the concertos as guests or as food. But how to account for the blindness of B & H?

So they all have difficulties understanding basic principles over at the Mises institute... If Rothbard was so smart, why didn't he correct his fellow Miseans? Perhaps he was silent because he was just intellectually dishonest (as his claim that Taoism was a form of anarcho-capitalism), perhaps he was silient because he forgot how mathematical and physics principles work after having been around Misean economics.

[Skooma Addict]

Consider their late "dean," Murray Rothbard. I met him at each of the LvMI conferences I attended, and could see he was very intelligent and well read. I enjoyed his sense of humor. But it was also clear he often had no idea what he was talking about, and was, well, crazy. For example, at the 1989 conference he discussed graphical representations of demand curves, and pointed out that the textbook standard had once been the constant elasticity demand curve, until someone (Stigler, I believe) drew a linear demand curve, which became the new standard. As Rothbard correctly observed, it doesn’t really matter how they are drawn, since all are simply heuristic tools, rather than exact representations of reality. Good point.

However, at the 1990 conference, he was drawing "realistic" demand curves, and insisting that the only proper way to draw them was as an irregular step function, taking special care to be sure there was no perfectly elastic portion, which would be "impossible." I thought this was a bit mad. Never mind that the continuous demand curve he drew necessarily assumes an infinitely divisible good, in violation of his own strictures concerning utility theory. Who cares that it’s "more realistic?" This curve tells us nothing different than a constant-elasticity or linear curve does, and none of them are "realistic," nor can they be. And they are useful nevertheless. During one of our evening discussion groups, Roger Garrison incredulously asked if any of us students really thought anything was gained by drawing the demand curve Rothbard-style. None of us did, nor did Garrison. Rothbard’s insistence on it made no sense, but is typical of the strange and unthinking economic "realism" sometimes seen with the Mises Institute.

On this note, consider the lengthy exchange between Block and Hulsmann of LvMI, and Bryan Caplan of George Mason. Caplan argued that Austrians are guilty of a false realism that is really quite unrealistic. Block and Hulsmann responded, and in the course of the debate began attacking neoclassical utility maximization for dividing and multiplying "incommensurate quantities." A condition for utility maximization is that MUX/PX = MUY/PY, but MU is measured in some sort of utility units (utils) and P is price, measured in monetary units. Since the units of measure are different, the units cannot be divided, argued our intrepid Mises Institute scholars. Hulsmann went on to give the example of a rabbit divided by a piano concerto, a supposed reductio ad absurdum.

Very funny, particularly since it illustrates that Block and Hulsmann failed to understand 3rd grade math. Caplan was incredulous. Miles per hour, anyone? (That’s 1.61Km/hr for my European readers, NV.) I kind of like the rabbits per concerto idea myself, although it’s unclear whether we’re taking the rabbits to the concertos as guests or as food. But how to account for the blindness of B & H?

And how does this prove that Rothbard didn't know math? He received a BA in mathematics from Columbia and a PHD in economics. He knew math quite well.



So they all have difficulties understanding basic principles over at the Mises institute... If Rothbard was so smart, why didn't he correct his fellow Miseans?


He did. He also corrected mathematical errors made by the more mainstream economists.

[IcarusAngel]

It's obvious you're making stuff up as a you go along; where are Rothbard's numerous contributions and why did he advocate theories as insane as anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, Rothbard was probably one of the smartest out of those cults (Austrian, Chicago school, objectivism, etc.), Milton Friedman being even smarter, but that's a very low standard when you have people who don't understand concepts such as revolutions per minute and how they are necessary in calculations.

[Skooma Addict]

It's obvious you're making stuff up as a you go along; where are Rothbard's numerous contributions and why did he advocate theories as insane as anarcho-capitalism.

What? Your the one making stuff up as you go along. You claimed Rothbard couldn't do math in an attempt to squeeze a quick insult into the mix. Unfortunately for you, Rothbard received a Bachelors in math from Columbia University, and a PHD in economics from Columbia as well. I guess Columbia just hands out degrees in mathematics and economics to people who can't do math.

[IcarusAngel]

I confused him with Block. It's a mistake anybody could make since it is difficult to tell one Austrian from another.

That said, I corrected my mistake and posted my source. Your numerous errors have continue to be repeated on the forum even after they've been shown to be false.

[Skooma Addict]

I confused him with Block. It's a mistake anybody could make since it is difficult to tell one Austrian from another.

I think you didn't mistake him for Block, and you were really just trying to sneak in another one of your absurd insults. Now your trying to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself. Also, you need to clarify your statement. It is difficult for you to tell one Austrian from another. It is not difficult for people with a basic understanding of economics.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. I remembered an article in which Rothbard claimed that you couldn't work with units of different measurement in mathematics, but mathematicians and physicists do this all the time in their calculations. Turns out it was Block, not Rothbard. And having a BA in math does not make one a "mathematician" btw..

As for economics, the only economics you know is from the Mises institute. I've stated where I get my economics from: the EPI, CEPR, etc., and I have the ability to analyze the data in a way that you do not.

You've also made numerous errors on the forum like claiming that Bertrand Russell "never wrote on behaviorism until it was disproven" even though he wrote on it in the 1920s, which was before the 1960s, and that "Karl Popper disproved behaviorism" when it was Chomsky, Fodor, et al., not Popper. You also claimed that Quine et al. somehow represted the "real" logical strain in logic, even though Quine etc. were influenced by Russell and Ayer himself has documented the importance of Russell's.

You also said that all human decisions come from "rational reasoning" when I quoted two of the top neuroscientists in the world who've proven that to be false, and then claimed "yah but not everything thinks that" without giving a single source, and also that humans make decisions best without others' input, which doesn't even make any sense.

You are a troll who refuses to correct his numerous mistakes or even back up his arguments.

[Skooma Addict]

Lol. I remembered an article in which Rothbard claimed that you couldn't work with units of different measurement in mathematics, but mathematicians and physicists do this all the time in their calculations. Turns out it was Block, not Rothbard. And having a BA in math does not make one a "mathematician" btw..

As for economics, the only economics you know is from the Mises institute. I've stated where I get my economics from: the EPI, CEPR, etc., and I have the ability to analyze the data in a way that you do not.

You've also made numerous errors on the forum like claiming that Bertrand Russell "never wrote on behaviorism until it was disproven" even though he wrote on it in the 1920s, which was before the 1960s, and that "Karl Popper disproved behaviorism" when it was Chomsky, Fodor, et al., not Popper. You also claimed that Quine et al. somehow represted the "real" logical strain in logic, even though Quine etc. were influenced by Russell and Ayer himself has documented the importance of Russell's.

You also said that all human decisions come from "rational reasoning" when I quoted two of the top neuroscientists in the world who've proven that to be false, and then claimed "yah but not everything thinks that" without giving a single source, and also that humans make decisions best without others' input, which doesn't even make any sense.

You are a troll who refuses to correct his numerous mistakes or even back up his arguments.

Trying to change the topic I see. Well, you can say now that you thought Rothbard was Block and that you are not informed enough to tell the difference between one economist from another, but I just don't buy it. The rest of your post is a giant red herring. I am not going to debate those points all over again.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. Your only knowledge of economics comes from readings at the Mises institute. That's why you were unable to provide any links to a peer-reviewed journal when I asked you for them, and claimed that I had to "go find them myself."

You can't learn anything about anything at the Mises institute, and certainly not political theory. You can learn more about economics at the CEI and from a calculus textbook than you could at the Mises Institute.

I had a lapse in memory, however, your errors came from a profound misunderstanding of the social sciences.

[Raúl Duke]

I have more than one...I guess I just don't really have a "preferred anarchist" but more like "here's some notable anarchists to me"

Bookchin (theory-wise, I'm intrigued and would like to read more), Guerin (theory wise, some initial ponderings on inter-mixing Marxist concepts to anarchism), Kropotkin (for initial yet out-dated laying out of and one of the "founders" of anarcho-communism), and Errico Malatesta (one of the 2-3 italian founders, most likely the actual ones, of anarcho-communist tendency. I would also include Carlos Cafiero but he didn't wrote as much).

[Skooma Addict]

Your not helping yourself here Icarus. The hole is getting deeper.


Your only knowledge of economics comes from readings at the Mises institute.This is the same kind of quick insult that you used against Rothbard when you said he couldn't do math. Like that one, this one is also false. I am currently reading Mankiw, who is a New Keynesian.

[IcarusAngel]

The article doesn't just criticize Block for being an idiot but also Rothbard. Show how Rothbard's step function models are more accurate than the models used by mainstream economists (like the author of the article). You claimed that Rothbard had proven himself correct, so prove it.

[ComradeMan]

Ew so much Chomsky losers :(

Malatesta fo' real.

Not a fan of Chomsky then?

Malatesta should be read more in my opinion. Can you believe that a hell of a lot of Italians don't even know who he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

[RGacky3]

:thumbup:RGacky's my favorite Anarchist! :thumbup:

Apathy Maybe--second

And TAT--third.
__________________


Awwww ... duuuuddeee :crying:

[ls]

It's pretty funny that you were an anarchist yet you miss out Kropotkin. Granted, he did espouse national chauvinism at one point, but hey he was from the bougeois like many major communist/socialist and anarchist contributors to ideology.

Anyway, I'd second Godstomper; Malatesta. Perhaps Kropotkin second I don't know. Most of the market anarchists mentioned aren't actually anarchists also, just fyi.

My favourite overall socialists would probs be Sylvia Pankhurst, Herman Gorter, Karl Liebknect and the u gene.

[Havet]

It's pretty funny that you were an anarchist yet you miss out Kropotkin. Granted, he did espouse national chauvinism at one point, but hey he was from the bougeois like many major communist/socialist and anarchist contributors to ideology.

Exactly. Why wasn't The Anarchist Prince included?

[ls]

And Proudhon was a true worker right?

In fairness, Malatesta was.

[scarletghoul]

Does SubCom Marcos count as Anarchist ?
Also where are all the Asian anarchists off that list ? They were the best. Kim Jwa-jin, Kaneko Fumiko, Noe Ito, Kim Won-bong...
Mao was into anarchism at first too, if that counts ..

Out of those on the list Bakunin was the coolest person. Durruti had maybe the best historical impact.

[scarletghoul]

And I'd like to know why Alicia Keys (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/15/aliciakeys.urban) is not included in the poll.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/15/aliciakeys.urban)

[Old Man Diogenes]

Where's Proudhon? And more importantly Kropotkin? :crying: But it would otherwise have to be Goldman, the old girl was amazing :wub: and I prefer the term 'thinker' to "leader" I must say. :thumbup1: And it'd be nice if Alexander Berkman was on there, because I think he's good.

[Tablo]

I said Goldman and other.
For other I like Kropotkin and Berkman.

[scarletghoul]

and I prefer the term 'thinker' to "leader" I must say. .
They're not interchangable words tho. Sure the 2 roles overlap a lot, but a thinker and a leader are not the same thing.

Perhaps a better more anarchist friendly substitute for 'leader' would be "brotherly guide of the revolution" ?

[Publius]

They're not interchangable words tho. Sure the 2 roles overlap a lot, but a thinker and a leader are not the same thing.


George W. Bush was a leader, but not a thinker. Also, a decider.

For example.

[The Red Next Door]

Rosa Luxumberg.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Emma Goldman-baddest mother fucker in the world. Although i find myself becoming more of a individualist anarchist instead of a collective or communist one, she remains my favorite anarchist.

[Old Man Diogenes]

They're not interchangable words tho. Sure the 2 roles overlap a lot, but a thinker and a leader are not the same thing.

Perhaps a better more anarchist friendly substitute for 'leader' would be "brotherly guide of the revolution" ?

By the way, you're really witty. I'm aware a 'thinker and a 'leader' are not the same. I prefer 'thinker' instead of 'leader' as Anarchists don't really have any Lenin, Trotsky or Guevara characters. :star:

[ComradeMan]

It's pretty funny that you were an anarchist yet you miss out Kropotkin. Granted, he did espouse national chauvinism at one point, but hey he was from the bougeois like many major communist/socialist and anarchist contributors to ideology.

Anyway, I'd second Godstomper; Malatesta. Perhaps Kropotkin second I don't know. Most of the market anarchists mentioned aren't actually anarchists also, just fyi.

My favourite overall socialists would probs be Sylvia Pankhurst, Herman Gorter, Karl Liebknect and the u gene.


Well I couldn't put them all on there, I was trying to get an even spread. Nevertheless, weren't you ranting about Kropotkin being an imperialist and losing his anarchist credentials on another thread a month or so ago? :thumbup1:

[ls]

Well I couldn't put them all on there, I was trying to get an even spread. Nevertheless, weren't you ranting about Kropotkin being an imperialist and losing his anarchist credentials on another thread a month or so ago? :thumbup1:

That doesn't mean he didn't contribute to anarchist theory? He ceased to be an anarchist when he supported an imperialist faction in war though and his writings after that were generally quite irrelevant.

[ComradeMan]

That doesn't mean he didn't contribute to anarchist theory? He ceased to be an anarchist when he supported an imperialist faction in war though and his writings after that were generally quite irrelevant.

... and that's why he isn't on the list. :thumbup1:

[ls]

... and that's why he isn't on the list. :thumbup1:

Were you kicked in the head by a horse when you were young. :thumbup1:

[Incendiarism]

Kropotkin.

[Tablo]

I'm also kinda pissed Kropotkin wasn't on the list. He was a major contributor to Anarchist theory.

[ComradeMan]

I'm also kinda pissed Kropotkin wasn't on the list. He was a major contributor to Anarchist theory.

So he was, but he also caused a lot of harm to the Anarchist movement with his stance on WWI, albeit that I give him the benefit of the doubt that he had good intentions. Like I said before, I couldn't put them all on there but there was the option for "Other..." :)

[#FF0000]

Rosa Luxumberg.

She was absolutely not an anarchist.

[ComradeMan]

LOL!! Typical anarchists :laugh: we have Malatesta, Goldman and Chomsky neck and neck.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm confused by the fact that until now, I don't remember ever hearing or reading about Malatesta anywhere. There a organization or something that's responsible for this popularity?

[ComradeMan]

I'm confused by the fact that until now, I don't remember ever hearing or reading about Malatesta anywhere. There a organization or something that's responsible for this popularity?

Mamma mia! He was one of the most influential of his time. His works were written in Italian, such as L'Anarchia, but were also translated too.

[revolution inaction]

I'm confused by the fact that until now, I don't remember ever hearing or reading about Malatesta anywhere. There a organization or something that's responsible for this popularity?

You can find his writings here (http://libcom.org/tags/errico-malatesta) and here (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/malatesta/MalatestaCW.html)

[Incendiarism]

So he was, but he also caused a lot of harm to the Anarchist movement with his stance on WWI, albeit that I give him the benefit of the doubt that he had good intentions. Like I said before, I couldn't put them all on there but there was the option for "Other..." :)

He was the brightest anarchist theorist, at least in my opinion. Sure he may have made a mistake with his stance on the world war, but that doesn't mean he was insincere or his writings invalid. He was an anarchist, and his work still greatly influences me and tempers my own ideas, however different they may be.

[Drace]

Emma Goldman-baddest mother fucker in the world. Although i find myself becoming more of a individualist anarchist instead of a collective or communist one, she remains my favorite anarchist.

So why are you an anarchist if you don't oppose private property - like Goldman did?