WikiProject Politics	(Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)	PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject PoliticsPolitics articles
Politics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Extremely poor quality article, has little to do with subject 2 Purpose of Article 3 Criticisms? 4 Abolition of monetary systems 5 Relatively new? 6 Critique of Subjective Theory of Value 7 Free Market? 8 Parecon a command economy? 9 Two Anarchisms 10 Cost-Price Theories of Value 10.1 Critique of Subjective Theories of Value - 2 11 mutualism 12 Can we separate theories of value from gifts/trade/currency? 13 Merge proposal 14 More *TV stuff 15 Free Banking 16 Economics as anarchist theory

[edit] Extremely poor quality article, has little to do with subject

This article needs to be a NPOV account of the different economic theories (ie. not deontological or moral or aesthetic) that have been called anarchist. Such an account should include summaries of or content from (A) Marxian and anti-Marxian anarchist economic theory [eg. Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid], (B) French realist economic theory [Bastiat and Molinari], (C) Austrian school theory [Rothbard, Hoppe, Stringham, et al], and (D) Friedmanite neoclassical economic theory [David Friedman, Bryan Caplan].. and possibly short mentions regarding (E) mutualism [Kevin Carson] and (F) parecon. The article as it stands is an ad hoc, heavily POV description of a few political movements.

[edit] Purpose of Article

Since the anarchism article is already quite lengthy, I felt this was an important expansion of it. The discussion of various economic theories should be limited to simply overview, with article text explaining how they do or do not fit within anarchist theory itself.

Already I feel like the opening section is way too long, and there is probably a better article on objections to capitalism that I did not find. I would rather focus my attentions on explaining the alternative value theories. --albamuth 02:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally a place to put information about this! Info on the web about anarchist economics is scattered and often hard to find, I hope this article helps group it together in this place. Nice job. --Fatal 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms?

Most articles on potentially controversial subjects have a section on criticisms. For me this is too much of a straw man to attack, but surely it should be noted that most informed rational people view anarchist economics as intellectually flawed and practically unworkable? The article on economics as a whole has a large criticisms section, and that's more a system of thought than a (i want to say crackpot) novel hypothesis?208.51.44.100 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First, your entry has a lot of weasel words (most informed rational people). Second, how can these "rational" people view anarchist economics at all? Kids don't learn even basic economics until college, and even then, it is a decidedly capitalist education. There are no more labor pages in the USA, and even important anarchist intellectuals like Chomsky are repeatedly overlooked. You even describe the article as "potentially controversial." Well, if "most informed rational people" are already familiar with the subject, AND have comprehensibly rejected it, where's the controversy? Also, wikipedia does not leave the door wide open to "potential" criticisms, but to actual ones. "Some have said..." belongs on Bill O'Reilly, not wiki. That being said, if you can cite works where some element of anarchist economic thought is criticised, please include them for discussion. But they should spur reasoned debate, not try to squash it as you've tried.72.78.162.199 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I can't understand why economic democracy as part of the Inclusive Democracy project has been deleted with the excuse of no "reliable sources" at the moment when there was a very reliable source by an anarchist, David Freeman ^[1] which was posted and while e.g. the entry on Parecon hasn't been deleted for the same reason although it doesn't include any reference that suggests its relationship with anarchism. Panlis (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abolition of monetary systems

The article states that only primitivists want to abolish money. This isn't true. There are many anarchist economic arguments against money, namely the economic system right underneath that statement, the kind of economics put forth by anarcho-communists most often deal with the abolition of money. In What is Anarchism?, Berkman argued that money should be abolished. I don't think this part of the article is worded correctly. --Fatal 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

good point. i've changed the wording a little. i think in the context of globalized economies (some) anarchists have come around to the idea of currency as indispensible. Also remember that Berkman was anti-war during WWI, isolationist even, and I think most anarchists would regard that as wrong in retrospect. Berkman was a little crazy, too -- remember when he tried to kill that dud? "propaganda by the deed" he called it. --albamuth 06:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Almost all the anarchists I've known advocate the abolition of money. A few believe in a transition state of some sort, but those who advocate currency are definately in the minority. I can't say I've heard the objection that globalization makes currency necessary.

[edit] Relatively new?

"Since economics is a relatively new subject within anarchism, most discussion is limited to theory."

Sounds like crap to me: Kropotkin talked quite a lot about exactly how an anarchist society would function economically in, for example, The Conquest of Bread. It's only limited to theory as much as any other aspect of anarchism. -- Sam Francis 19:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bad wording, agreed. I suggest you do the rewording though -- I couldn't think of a good intro blurb so that crapulance is my fault. --albamuth 23:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of Subjective Theory of Value

As such it has an effect on the price, as will be shown

Is this a dangling reference? If not, it's not very clear. -- Beland 18:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but as the means to determine a product's price it ignores the dynamics of a capitalist economy and the production relations that underlie the market. In effect, the STV treats all commodities like works of art, and such products of human activity (due to their uniqueness) are not a capitalistic commodity in the usual sense of the word (i.e. they cannot be reproduced and so labour cannot increase their quantity). Therefore the STV ignores the nature of production under capitalism.

After reading the explanation of STV at Marginalism, I still don't understand the above paragraph. The typical case in explanations of STV are for widely available, identical commodities. While it supposes that each consumer might put a different value on any given good or service, it doesn't seem to imply that the same person would value identical goods differently. Most supporters of capitalism would agree that supply-and-demand imbalances definitely affect prices because of STV. Because different people have different valuations, there's a range of prices people are willing to pay. In a supply shortage, the price gets bid up by those with higher valuations, which increases profit and theoretically increases the incentive to produce more. Perhaps someone more familiar with the anarchist critique(s) of this theory could elucide the above. -- Beland 18:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think that the critique of STV is unneccessary altogether. If anywhere, the anarchist of STV should be explained in the Anarchism and Capitalism article. --albamuth 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Anarchists claim that STV is a myth and as an explanation of how to determine the price of a commodity, it has serious flaws."

Do all anarchists claim the above? Who in particular? Can someone provide references to anarchist critiques of marginalism?

The few Anarchist economists I have come across, like the more numerous Marxists, do often stick with labour theory of value. But I wonder if this is more to do with how the tradition has developed and with a rejection of 'bourgeois economics' than with intrinsic merits of the theories. (After all, labour theory of value was itself developed by 'bourgeois' economists, only a century or so before. It often strikes me as a real problem with many left economists I've met that they are happy to study Ricardo in great depth but dismiss the idea that they might have anything to learn from the neoclassicals.)

My personal opinion is that labour theory of value is deeply flawed - at least as a positive theory to explain prices (and/or 'values' if indeed such a distinction is tenable) as they occur in capitalism. And I think that marginalism was in fact a big step forward in economics. Is this belief incompatible with anarchism? I'm not sure how - but would be very interested to read detailed arguments that might persuade me otherwise.

Note - when talking about theories of value and anarchist (and indeed socialist) social models I think it is imperative to distinguish between 'positive' and 'normative' theories of value. (Clumsy terminology, but can't think of anything better right now.) So - saying that LTV explains prices as we see them is one thing (positive theory). Saying, as some anarchists have argued, that we should replace markets as they exist by a fairer system based on accountimg for labour time is something quite different. Therefore I think:

1. You could support a marginalist type system based on labour time even if you reject LTV as a positive economic theory.

2. You could believe that marginalist hypotheses give better explanations of events in capitalist economies, or even the best explanations available, and yet be opposed to capitalism.

Bengalski 12:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free Market?

Since when did anarchists advocate a free market? --Jazz Remington 6 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Who says they do? Ah, I did. Well consider the definition of free market: it simply means that people have free choices in terms of making consumption-decisions. I don't think any anarchist is for rationing out goods. capitalism is something else entirely.--albamuth 6 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Anarchists in the mutualist tradition embrace the free market, most others reject it in some way, as is described somewhat in the libertarian socialism article. However the alternatives to it that are offered, such as in Parecon, appear to fall well within your definition of a "free market". The misunderstanding is in how Pareconists define the term, which I expect would have little resemblance to your own. buermann 01:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

agreed- anarchism is necessarily free market because we are anti-any state that could regulate a market. markets exist in every economic system, in marxism for instance they are merged into the state but they don't disappear, they just change form. a gift economy is a classic free market, goods are exchanged for social currency (status) instead of monetary currency, but there is still an exchange going on that is tracked by participants. not necessarily a 1-to-1 exchange, but an exchange no less. if no such exchange took place there would be no impetus for individuals to contribute, after all, and the system would collapse. essentially the baseline definition of a social anarchist economic system is one in which the means of production are owned collectively and individuals are free to produce what they will using those means of production and then trade or give away the things they produce as they see fit within a totally open and free market of markets. issues of specialization of labor and currency usage depend on the school of thought - though personally i think it's difficult to see how a currency-based market could be made to function in the interests of old people, retired people, disabled people, and women involved in child-rearing (ie people whose capacity for currency-earning economic activity is curtailed in some way) without some sort of redistributive mechanism that smells very state-ist to me. but then that's getting into the debate between anarcho-communism and mutualism and is a bit off topic.

Incidentally, one could argue (and i definitely DO argue) that anarcho-capitalism is NOT free market because it is based on private ownership of the means of production which creates a hierarchy of access to those means, thus creating distortions in the marketplace. After all, we have to recognize that in capitalism it is not just governments that oppose the free market via protectionism, capitalists themselves hate and fear the free market because competition threatens profit margins and so corporations do everything they can to eliminate their competition and restrict access to markets, thus distorting those markets and making them "unfree". chomsky has written quite a bit on this topic, actually. The problem with "pure" capitalism as an economic system is that it's utterly unrealistic and utopian, which is why - unlike anarchism - it has never actually existed anywhere. oh the irony.... Anarchocelt 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parecon a command economy?

"Parecon is technically a command economy scheme, though it relies on feedback loops to regulate production/consumption."

I do not think this is fair or in fact true at all. I have researched parecon extensively and I have found no evidence to support this and unless someone can show it to me convincingly, I will remove that statement. Parecon I think is a new kind of economy, a democratic one that does not fit neatly into the terms “free” or “command”. --Fluxaviator 14:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

True, it doesn't fit into that dichotomy exactly, but it depends on how you look at it. In Parecon, pricing and production is set by a decentralized, democratic process, not by individual merchants or sellers. In that sense it is a command economy. On the other hand, since there is no centralized gov't agency controlling the economy, you might also say that it is not a command economy. If we were to attach a description of Parecon that was neither "free market," nor "command economy." then we need to show that there is an academic basis for it (something that comments on Parecon and assigns a different label). --albamuth 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say we use the terms it's creators give it. A theoretical "participatory planning process", or "democratic planning process". there are many sources besides the author’s for this description. Shall I dig them up or can we agree to tweak the wording. I also have an issue with the word "scheme", perhaps "theory" is a better way of wording it. We can even say specifically that the model does not fit exactly into either of the traditional economic binary. --Fluxaviator 02:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

When something doesn't fit into a dichotomy it means you have a false dichotomy. This one, "free markets vs. command economy" happens to be identical to the false dichotomy of "capitalism vs. communism". buermann 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Anarchisms

I advocate that both Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism have there own seperate pages, though the arguments both for and against this Idea are vast, I think that both philosophies would be more accurately represented by this. Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchism are two completely disharmonious mutually exclusive philosophies, this "war of ideas", though productive, probably has no place in the dessimination process of the information in this wiki, it does people a disservice and further conflates the problem of the confusion. It would be an out and out lie to try to put forth anarcho-capitalism as a system of anarchism, and further a lie to put forth anarchism as a system of anarcho-capitalism. And so I propose that some brave persons help to create two seperate pages. Anarcho-capitalists have about as much in common with Anarchists as libertarians do, and it does all a disservice to pretend otherwise.

I agree with the above call for separate articles for traditional left anarchist economic ideas and anarcho-capitalist ideas.BernardL 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what Anonymous wants. There is already separate anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist pages. The anarchism article is for all types of anarchism, not just the socialist schools. Are you saying that this article should be forked into Anarcho-socialist economics and Anarcho-capitalist economics? Hogeye 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancap is a branch of liberalism, not of anarchism. It's only connection with anarchism is the name. // Liftarn

You are mistaken. Ancap is a branch of both liberalism and capitalism. Hogeye 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's both a branch of liberalism and capitalism, but I don't really see capitalism as a political ideology and I haven't seen any anti-capitalist liberals. // Liftarn

I agree with this anonymous user as well. It is much better to keep things separate than putting two systems in direct opposition to one another listed on the same page. I would say the same for anarchist law, where Hogeye keeps trying to insert very POV text saying things such as "In short, anarchists are not against police and courts per se; they are against the state being the sole provider of these services." Creating new anarcho-capitalist law and anarcho-capitalist economics articles makes more sense and is less contestable. Sarge Baldy 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah separate the 'anarcho-capitalist' stuff out. Anarcho-capitalism isnt really part of the anarchist tradition, and technically isn't anarchist anyway (because all anarchists oppose heirachy by definition and thus oppose capitalism.). In fact I'd go one further and suggest references to anarcho-capitalism in wikipedia be replaced with 'anti-state capitalism' , so as to avoid confusing people into thinking anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. But I suspect that battles been fought and frusturatingly lost before. 121.45.243.122 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cost-Price Theories of Value

"The notion that there is an objective just price depending on the cost of production was generally abandoned by economic science after the marginalist revoltion in the 1800s. Many anarchists still cling to this "creationism of the left," though many have abandoned it in favor of an unequal bargaining position rationale for the exploitation theory."

This strikes me as both a vacuous statement and POV in numerous ways...

1. I think you are conflating the concept of "just price" which principally belonged to pre-capitalist medieval "economics" with "cost of production theory" considered to have been erratically expressed by Ricardo, Mill, and, according to some, partially by Marshall.

2. "Many anarchists cling to this "creationism of the left,".... give specific examples of notable anarchist texts demonstrating that "many anarchists" maintain the theory you have in mind. The use of "many anarchists" without specificity is just weasel-wording.

3. "creationism of the left," - this is blatantly POV. Don't expect an article explicating the mainsprings of anarchist economic thought to grovel before the myths of mainstream economic ideology. As a full blown theory of long term prices and economic allocation, marginalism hardly qualifies as "science" on the same level of Darwin's theory vs. creationism.

4. Sorry but mainstream economics is a far cry from authentic science.

5. It required 2 seconds with google to find an example of left anarchist value theory that, while finding a place for notions of objective costs of production, is far more nuanced and better reasoned than the vacuous posturing of the removed paragraph. [1]BernardL 03:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Currently it reads:

The notion that there is an objective just price depending on the cost of production was generally abandoned by economic science after the marginalist revoltion in the 1800s. However, many anarchists (and socialists in general) still hold a form of this theory, in order to justify their exploitation theory - the claim that workers (renters, borrowers) are exploited. Some have abandoned cost-price theories in favor of unequal bargaining position rationales for the exploitation theory.

---

1. The labor theory of value (and other forms of cost-price theory) do derive from the medieval just price doctrine. The claim of cost-price theories is that the production cost is the just price for selling. Yes, it's primitive creationism of the left (but I won't call it that in the article anymore.)

2. You want me to name anarchists who held a cost-price theory such as the labor theory of value? Virtually all the anarcho-socialists and nearly all the individualist anarchists. Don't be an idiot.

3. Okay, I deleted the "creationism of the left" description, despite its aptness.

4. Whether econ is "authentic science" is irrelevant; the claim is that cost-price theory "was generally abandoned by economic science after the marginalist revoltion in the 1800s." That is indisputably true. Only a few diehard socialists buy that shit nowadays.

5. That (notoriously biased) FAQ does not explain or justify cost-price that I can see. The page you linked simply gives a rather bad critique of the STV. It's so bad, it can't even define "marginal utility" correctly in the second paragraph! By the way, a much better FAQ, written by a professor instead of a crackhead, is [Anarchist Theory FAQ]. Hogeye 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of Subjective Theories of Value - 2

I cut out this whole section (copied below) because: it hasn't got any references; until someone provides a serious reference, I don't believe that criticism of 'STV' is central to anarchist thought at all; it includes some basic errors. I commented on this some months ago (above) but no one replied - so any critics of STV, take me to task now.

Some specific criticisms of the text:

-sources of utility - modern economists don't believe in a primary good called 'utility'. They see utility functions as expressions of (at least in theory) observable behaviour in choosing between bundles of goods (revealed preference theory).

-marginalism is reductionist in its illegitimate narrowing of economic behaviour to rational self-interest.: no, marginalism doesn't imply self-interest - any first year economics student could explain how to incorporate others' preferences into utility functions.

-class and other forms of domination as important factors accounting for human agency - I'd argue game theory gives us valuable tools for understanding class and domination.

-irrelevance of theoretical models based upon competitive equilibrium with regard to modern oligopolies - yes, but what 'orthodox' economists mowadays believe that economies can be modelled with perfect competition general equilibrium models? Now we have highly developed theories of oligopoly, imperfect competition, market failure, game theory etc.

-leaves important aspects of economic life that enter into valuation out of the picture, such as the household and production relations, and draw attention to its failure to adequately account for dynamic processes related to long-term economic change - yes there's something in that, although there are theories to 'endogenise' preference formation, intra-household models, even theories of household production - even theories of marriage a la Gary Becker etc. I think the point is that methodologically sound 'orthodox' economists view preference models and utility functions as useful abstractions that they believe do produce empirically verifiable (or falsifiable) results when applied on a large scale. Whether they're right or wrong is an interesting question, but I don't think you can write off the whole idea because many models abstract away from preference formation or intra-household issues. Any labour theory of value model has to use equally massive, or even greater, abstractions.

-hollow stance of value neutrality - I'm not sure what this means. If it means 'trying to be an objective science', I'm not sure why it's a bad thing. If it means 'orthodox economists pretend to be objective but they're really capitalist hypocrites', then yes many of them are, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole marginalist approach. Weren't Smith and Ricardo capitalist bastards too? Bengalski 22:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of capitalism usually agree with what is called the Subjective Theory of Value (STV). The prevalent form of the (STV) which usually appears in economics textbooks is known as the marginal utility theory of value. In academia, this school supersedes the older classical economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

As with previous theories based upon a utility theory of value the marginalists maintained that commodities exchanged on the market were sources of utility for consumers. However the defining innovation of the marginalists was a rigorous abstract explanation of how market prices reflecting supply and demand were, in the last analysis, a net aggregrate expression of the economizing behaviour of the independent individuals who populated the market. The theory was anchored by the notion that, since utility satisfaction for a given commodity diminishes with each additional increment consumed, rational individuals balance their consumption choices so as to maximize total marginal utility for their given set of preferences. Market prices were the expression of this marginalizing rationality as it is constrained by the interacting competititve context of the market economy.

Anarchist economists join many other leftist economists, notably Marxists, neo-Ricardians, and critical institutionalists, in dissenting against mainstream economics which "far from being the 'science' it claims to be, instead serves as capitalism's ideology." (Dowd, Understanding Capitalism, 4) They have argued that marginal utility theories of value contain fundamentally incoherent views of human agency, institutions, valuation and allocation. Accordingly, they have argued that marginalism is reductionist in its illegitimate narrowing of economic behaviour to rational self-interest. Social anarchists point to the role of social institutions, including that of class and other forms of domination as important factors accounting for human agency. They have also pointed to the irrelevance of theoretical models based upon competitive equilibrium with regard to modern oligopolies that are sustained by a complex fabric of dominance in the form of economic, legal, political and cultural institutions. Additionally they maintain that a marginal utility of value leaves important aspects of economic life that enter into valuation out of the picture, such as the household and production relations, and draw attention to its failure to adequately account for dynamic processes related to long-term economic change. Underlying many of these sharp disagreements are qualitatively different approaches to the methodology of economic enquiry. Social anarchist economists vociferously reject the preliminary intellectual dispositions of marginalists towards economic enquiry including their methodological individualism, emphasis on mathematical and logical formalism, and what they regard as a hollow stance of value neutrality.

[edit] mutualism

since when do mutualist support private property? "Individualist anarchists are mutualist rather than socialist; they support "private property" but oppose usury"". If you read section G.2 of an anarchist faq it will give a short summary on why mutualist are also socialist and do not support private property. Private property, in todays contemporary use, is all to affiliated with the private property regime of capitalism and should not be a phrase used to describe mutualist defenition of property. Mutualist could not be anything else other than socialist abecause they advocate that workers own the meansd of production. For crying out loud proudhon is a mutualist/socialist and he coined the the term property is theft. how could mutualist not be socialst? i dont understanmd the reasoning for this. Can someone please explain.

Well off the top of my head I'll tell you what I think. Some folks might not enjoy hearing it because it is a bit blunt, but that's the way it goes. The change was really effected in the sphere of popular political discourse rather than in academia; it is wound-up with the phenomena of the internet. For decades and decades prior to the 1980's it was considered normal to refer to mutualism as a form of socialism. However in the 1980's libertarian-capitalist theories and associated petty-bourgeois spin-offs rose in popularity particularly among white middle-class American males. Part of their ideological baggage included a fervent form of anti-statism and a complementary belief that "economic efficiency" and "freedom" required that most of the state's functions be assumed by the market. Assumption of economic and social functions by a state was considered a slippery slope potentially leading to totalitarianism. Around the same time there was also a resurgence of interest in historical anarchism. The new breed of libcap ideologues came to recognize affinities with the anti-statist elements of historical anarchism. However despite the surface similarities historical anarchism is in fact anathema to libcap because it typically advocates a radical transformation or replacement of the state apparatus by confederal arrangements of grassroots democratic institutions and at the very least radically embeds the market in democratic institutions, if not doing away with the market altogether. So the ideologues, who were seeped in paranoid anti-communism, could recognize both affinites with anarchism as well as a threat because of its potentially powerful grassroots message. Libcap is an essentially predatory tendency of thought, it seeks to eradicate or subsume anything that threatens to be a rival alternative. So with anarchism, the game was either to attack it through various misrepresenting devices or to co-opt it by attempting to subsume it under the folkore of laissez-faire. In my opinion these were among the main impulses that factored into Bryan Caplan's notoriously distorted Anarchist Theory FAQ. Proudhon himself was little help in this manner, since he was a sloppy, mostly half-baked thinker whose ideas became more reactionary over time. With a little creativity it became possible to reinterpret him as a kind of quasi-free marketeer advocating petty-bourgeois property relations. The internet played a huge role in this episode, because it became so easy to regurgitate volumes upon volumes of these distorted intepretations to growing legions of fawning libertarian capitalist cultists without having to deal with the discomforting work of honest reflection on the words written and the cultural milieu and historical context in which they were written. Once disseminated to legions on the internet these (mis)interpretations assume an automonous life, they evolve into entities that are barely recognizable form the original's intentions after being subjected to repeated reinterpetation and distortions.70.55.141.47 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well i defenetly understand wear your coming form and ,for the most part, i agree with a lot of what your saying. But i still strongly disagree with the statement of alligning proudhons thoughts and theories of mutualism with petty-bourgeois ones. Doing this only fules the anarcho-capitalist school of though by giving them misinterpretated acounts of proudhons theories. Not to metion it would give prestest and excuses to other non anarchist socialist and marxists to dissmis anarchism as being infected with traditional and or contemporary bourgeois though. To dismiss proudhon's mutualism as reactionary is, in my opinion, dangerous to the anarchist movement and in the long run may threaten autonomy and solidarity between true anarchist economies. I recognize that mutualism may not be as an efficiant threory to put into paractice(in todays times) as others would be, but once a worker revolution is in motion the economic outcome should have the abillity for diversety in the atounomous choices of workers; weather a worker joins a gift economy, collectivises some property or not collectivise any at all. Rather then allow this american phenomena to take hold of a traditional anarchist school of though, we should combat it wearever it rears its ugly head by preserving true conceptions of anarchist economies. I aslo am quick to question your statement on proudhon being slopy. I simply do not understand wear this notion of yours is comming from. I still say the person who wrote the intro should change the lines that say mutualist are not socialist.she/he/they should also rephrase the part wear it describes what anarcho-syndacalist and anarchist-communist are against(i.e.heirarchical production relationms, collecting rent from propery, and private proeprty) seing as mutualist are against all those things as well.

This is wikipedia, so the "person who wote the intro" is something like 30 different people. I actually started the article, and the intro is nothing like what I wrote orginially, but I think it is much better. If you trust the wikipedia concept, then you should either edit the intro yourself, or trust that someone else will eventually.

Anyhow, I have to agree with 70.55.141.47 - Proudhon's mutualism was pretty poorly defined. Bookchin even describes Proudhon as a federalist - another term that could be wildly misconstrued by people unfamiliar with political science terms (and even those who are).

As it stands, the quality problem with many of the anarchism articles is that they are written with a target audience of politicos in mind, not the everyday person. It may help to wikify more terms, but with something as complex as "anarchist economics", you can only hope that the novice reader will self-educate themselves sufficiently. --albamuth 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we separate theories of value from gifts/trade/currency?

As it is, the article addesses two very different ideas together, and confuses LTV with time-money schemes. Jacob Haller 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I think all the issues in Anarchism and capitalism are issues of Anarchist economics, and consolidation should help. Jacob Haller 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If no response by June 1st, will start moving sections. Jacob Haller 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best idea - while they are similar, one is the anarchist critique of capitalism, while the other is suggested replacements. If you combined the two, the article might be too long. Just my non-monetary two cents... Supersheep 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And different critiques of capitalism imply different replacements for it. Those who attribute exploitation to competition (and not monopoly) often prefer communism. Those who attribute exploitation to monopoly (and not competition) often prefer mutualism, agorism, or geoism. Jacob Haller 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am personally very much opposed to the merge. 1- the resulting article would be stupid-long and cumbersome. 2- anarchist critiques of capitalism are not (as you contend) particularly linked to proposals for alternative economic systems. 3- for the sake of clarity it doesn't make sense to have a whole bunch of information on a page devoted to anarchist economic systems go into detail about why anarchists think capitalism sucks - at best it would just further reinforce the common mis-perception that all we have are critiques and not concrete suggestions and at worst it obscures both topics by conflating them. please don't do this, if you do they'll just end up getting separated out into two articles again sooner or later and there's no point creating unnecessary work. Anarchocelt 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More *TV stuff

The gift economy subsection currently states that anarcho-communists do not believe value can be objectively measured, and therefore reject both the LTV and STV. I can't recall the exact words. Neither LTV nor STV require an objective measure of value (only subjective and transactional measures of value, either ordinal or interval). I understand that many anarchocommunists oppose both LTV and STV, but that can't be why. Jacob Haller 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I worded it poorly. I was trying to say that anarcho-communists oppose both the LTV and the STV because they believe all forms of monetary values to measure the worth of labor (production) or exchange are artificial (even if they don't claim to be objective). Anarcho-communists see measuring the worth of how much a worker produces in a day or the price value of television like trying to measure how much air should be worth. Full Shunyata 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Any idea how to clear this up? I'd suggest avoiding any reference to *TV. Jacob Haller 20:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The TVs are being used very imprecisely anyway. Communists would not contest the basic assumptions of the LTV: non-productivity of capital, labor as the "source of wealth," etc. And they are, it seems to me, simply uninterested in the conclusions of the subjective theories. I doubt that the current claim can be adequately sourced. Libertatia 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I snipped about two sentences there. Feel free to revert if that was too aggressive. Jacob Haller 22:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Full Shunyata, you seem to have a major misunderstanding about economic theories of "value." "Value" refers to exchange value, that is, price. It doesn't refer to "worth." The labor theory of value theorizes that in a market economy price is determined by the quantity of labor. It's not saying "worth" is determined by the quantity of labor. For the subjective theory of value, it's saying that exchange value, price, is determined by usefulness and scarcity. Worth and value (exchange value) are two different things. These are simply two competing theories to explain why market prices, exchange values, are what they are. Of course the labor theory is pretty much defunct now. The subjective theory of value was also an insufficient explanation, as it can't resolve the diamond-water paradox. Marginal utility theory of value is the latest theory and it seems to be a very solid predictor of exchange value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pianoer (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

If you're wondering about the early individualist anarchists on this, they accepted the labor theory of value and then looked around and saw that prices are actually not being determined by quantities of labor. But instead of finding fault with the theory they concluded that it was simply not a true market economy. Something was preventing the market from functioning properly. That something was the state. If the state could be eliminated the predictions of the labor theory of value would come true. Anarcho-communists have no use for theories of economic value because they oppose markets. There have no need to explain prices. Why they oppose markets I don't think has anything to do with economic theories of value. They're certainly not concerned about people receiving incomes proportional to their labor, as the mutualists were concerned about. They're simply concerned about getting their needs fulfilled, as is anyone else, but they think the best way to do that is to abolish markets.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pianoer (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

What do Technological LTV Networks have to do with LTV? I'm none too clear on this. I don't see anything on how these networks affect price determination. Jacob Haller 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was very curious about the concept Technological LTV Networks but cannot find anything about it when I google... perhaps a link or some other reference would be in place, for others that get curious? rakel gren 16:05, 31 Aug 2007

[edit] Free Banking

I've seen the word used to describe non-profit banking, e.g. mutual banking, as in the article, as well as for-profit full-reserve banking, for-profit fractional-reserve banking, and competition in banking. I now suggest dropping the term 'free banking' and using less ambiguous yerms throughout. Jacob Haller 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In individualist anarchist circles, "free banking" has generally referred to a free market in currency and other banking services. Under these circumstances, mutual banking and other alternative banking/currency forms can compete without specific state sanction. It ought to be possible to find quotes from Liberty to explain this. I suspect the most serious confusion inherent in the mutual banking/free banking terminology is that it dates from a period where banks issued currency. While we could expect this again under anarchist systems, it is likely that most of our readers will be less confused if, for example, we explain that "mutual banking" was actually a scheme for issuing secured credit currency, etc. Libertatia 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The text I wrote was based on praxis rather than theory. This creates a dilemma given the precarious legal position of the anarchist banking initiatives I know, as naming one could have a detrimental effect. I was very tempted to name one initiative, which was subjected to a dawn raid by the German police a few years ago, resulting in the head of the federal banking supervisory authority facing strong criticism on German TV. It won the subsequent legal battle and now has assets of over 20 million Euros, but it is not officially a bank and so still has to tread carefully.--91.108.7.140 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics as anarchist theory

I don't know if this line is necessarily a true statement. "Many anarchists support counter-economics, that is, participating in the "black" illegal market." Vericuester 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whom you ask, I think. After all, the "black market" is only "black" because the government says so. And since anarchists are rarely friends of institutionalized government, and vice versa, why should anarchists value the government's double standard (marijuana is bad because it's sold without permission, but clusterbombs are good because they are sold with permission)? That said, it does seem POV, in that it implies that the alternatives to the establishment can only be found in some dark alleyway filled with "criminal elements."72.78.162.199 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who propouse the inclution of Austrian economisc section?, it could be a good idea. Two or three paragraphs I think should be enough to begining. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing 'this is missing an Austrian Economics section' box. Of course it is. It has no relationship to anarchism, only libertarianism. All anarchists are opposed to capitalism without exception (this is axiomatic), so Austrian economics is alien to the anarchist tradition. 121.45.237.139 (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Austrian school is the only relatively mainstream or major economic school that currently deals with anarchism, capitalist or otherwise, in any serious way at all (well, to a lesser extent, Public Choice theory and the Chicago school do too). To not include it is to deny the reader the most pertinent information on the subject for ideological reasons, and such attempts at censorship will be combated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.171.112 (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)