Sunday Night (American TV program) and User talk:Radical Mallard: Difference between pages

Anarchism related edits

Thanks for your edits on anarchism related articles. Good work. An An 7 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism

What is your problem man? I'm the one that wrote in the individualist section that they opposed capitalism. I'm full aware that the labor-value individualists oppose capitalism. So, is everybody else. But that doesn't mean they oppose private property, including private ownership of the means of production, money, wages, and trade. It means they oppose PROFIT. Stop censoring this. RJII 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are YOU censoring any information about how the individualists were socialists, and they did not oppose voluntary collectivism, they opposed FORCED collectivism, just as Bakunin and Kropotkin did. Also, you have tried to use the history of the early pre-FDR individualists, plus pro-capitalists who were not remotely close to anarchists to boost up and give more false historic credibility to "anarcho-capitalism" - which is a concept that amounts to a "private state" and oppression for workers who work for industries with no regulations and no social support system. You lie over and over, and then when we anarchists stand up for ourselves and try to undo the damage you capitalists do, you call it "censorship".. You have filled the anarchism section with Elephants (capitalists who's "anti-statism" is actually simply tirades against any kind of workers self-ownership/socialism, and not actual anti-statism) and pretended they are Chickens (anarchists) ... so the Anarchism section is now a room full of elephants that you have pretended are chickens. They stand out like big, out of place monsterous beasts (and never mind Bastiat or Rand, photos of people like Rothbard certainly do not belong there.) If you really were interested in anarchism, by the way, you would know that voluntary (anti-authoritarian) collectivism and voluntary (anti-authoritarian) communism is synonmous with "individualism for workers". You have censored and spin-doctored the Anarchism entry and more or less ruined it. It's become less useful to actual anarchists and more useful to corporations, stock market traders, union busters, dictators, and bankers. Radical Mallard Thu Dec 22 19:58:42 EST 2005

"All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." -Henry Appleton, individualist anarchist, 1884. So don't tell me individualists anarchists didn't oppose collectivist anarchism. RJII 02:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry Appleton was simply expressing an opinion and was not a "official" representative of "individualist anarchism". The whole point of setting up "individualism" as opposed to "communism" was ridiculous, and if you go back and read the body of anarchist material it is cleae that there was simply no real distrinction between anarchist communism and anarchist individualism. Appleton proclaiming his opposition to it makes no difference. What you are doing is confsing class issues (a capitalist vs. a non capitalist society) with a symantec debate which never had any real base other than fear-mongering and accusations. Every individualist believed in violently defending their own interests.. yet simply because some individuals interests were not at threat at a given moment did not mean that other people's defense of their own interests (in this case the workers lives and liberty) was any less legitimate. It is impossible to remove the individual from society just as it is impossible to remove the society from individuals. Even the man who grows up being taught to read and write by computers, with no people around them, is still absorbing what is the legacy of society from the past (other people). The individual may rightfully have no debt to society. I do not believe they do have any "debt". But the Cold War, and Cold Warriors like yourself have tried to confuse the issue. It never was about the individual vs society... it was always about capitalists vs workers. All the dictators in the world do not change that fact. Radical Mallard March, 2006

'See Also' Section on 'Democracy Now!'

We are discussing your addition of links under See Also at the Democracy Now! article. I would like to know your reasoning for adding the links. See talk on that article. Jersey Devil feels they do not relate to Democracy Now. Your thoughts would be helpful to understand why, as they seem legitimate to me so far. Thanks. --Northmeister 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied... but I think this person who seems to feel they can totally monopolize the section is impossible to reason with, and there is little use trying to reason with them. They just don't care about anything but their own views. -Radical Mallard, Tue Mar 14 04:07:02 EST 2006

Per below...please refrain from 'personal attacks' as they are not helpful. Although I disapprove of the way Jersey Devil went about reverting the page without discussing it with you in Talk, I can not approve of the manner you've addressed him. I understand your frustration however. Just present why the links you put there are appropriate without insult to others. Be Bold but be Civil. Thanks. --Northmeister 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see below. No personal attacks were made, as the comments you mentioned were altered already to refer to the persons behavior, and not the person themselves. Please do not let this divert from the issue at hand, which is that this person is actign quite irresponsible, and their talk about personal attacks, which were already removed before you just wrote to me here, looks a lot like a diversion. --Radical Mallard Thu Mar 16 09:17:52 EST 2006

No personal attacks were made

One of our core policies here is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like I think you are quite stupid. are inappropriate. Please be nice to your fellow editors, Wikipedia:civility is a requirement, not an option. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was changed before you wrote this... it says I think you are acting quite stupid... I am refering to his behavior and not the person themselves. I can't describe someone who would simply remove someone's addictions and then threaten them with remarks like "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" in order to scare them away from makins additions when everyone can make additions anyway. I'm not always happy with the additions people make, but I am all for compromises. When a person simply allows no compromise and erases anything anyone adds to an entry, with no real explanation other then something quite vague, I would say it qualifies as stupid behavior. They simply don't realize that it isnt helpful, and instead of a person wanting to negotiate, they will naturally want to stand up for themselves and not be "walked upon". Radical Mallard Thu Mar 16 09:15:00 EST 2006

Hello again. I just read a very good suggestion on Democracy Now, that would clear up the link matter. Read this to see if you agree and then as a collaborative effort we can correct a wrong done to you. --Northmeister 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bakunin Section: Anti-Bakunin Slanders

Why have you removed the anti-semitism section from Bakunin? I have returned it - and I also refer you to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National anarchism page. Paki.tv 15:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: There are many, many famous people who before World War II said negative things about Jews. It did not imply anti-semitism so much as an accident of history: Jews were forced into money-lending jobs because Christians and Moslems both forbade jews from having normal jobs in Europe, and also both religious authorities had made "Usery" (money lending with interest) illegal... so jews ended up with money-lending jobs, and also because they were a persecuted minority, they focussed their knowledge naturally on enriching themselves for self-preservation. The combination of two factors: jews becoming rich off of interest bearing loans (and rich people and land owners tend to become calous jerks because of the way humans are "hard wired"), and the fact that christian and moslem anti-jew propaganda was so widespread led many intellectuals to view jews in a negative way. Even jews themselves were anti-semetic in many ways.

If you read Kafka you can see the staggaring emotional and mentally-crushing effect of the Jewish situation on the minds of some of the more psychologicaly vulnurable affected jews. The feelings of persecution and helplessness in the face of a world run by Christians and Moslems who hated them and stacked the deck against them. And if they were poor, they were called "degenerate" and if they were rich they were called "decadent"... there was no way out of it. Many US officials and government officials and leaders of all western countries were virulantly anti-semetic, yet no mention of it is in their wikipedia entries, and it is understood that anti-semitism is not related in any way to people's other personal philosophies that people today draw inspiration from.

The point about Bakunin is that people like yourself who highlight that about him have an agenda (a fascist, capitalist, or religious fundamentalist one) where you are trying to take something that is irrelevant to Bakunin and his message and use it for your own personal attacks on Jews, and in fact this could be done with many, many historical figures.. especially US presidents (LBJ made some anti-semetic statements, there is also H.L Menkin, and even Karl Marx) and so on. Why do people choose to not include that in all the historical record of those figures? It is because it is irrelevant to the positive work they did, and it was more of a personal thing related to the times. People like you and others who have an agenda to make Jews look bad are simply being manipulative propagandists. The other group that tries to do this are the marxists, who wish to defame and destroy the anarchists, even though they are responsible for far more negative things because of their authoritarianism and statism. I will change the Bakunin section back the way it was. Please do not bring your anti-seminism into the anarchist world.

If Bakunin were alive today it is obvious he would vehemently denounce anti-semitism as a nationalistic, racist, anti-anarchist idea. Before World War II nationalism had not played out it's final "card" and showed the world what the ultimate result of it was, so it is understandable that people did not see such things as a threat at the time. That so many jewish anarchists existed during and right after Bakunin's time, and so many jewish anarchist publications, and there were and still are so many jewish followers of Bakunun is proof that they knew his basic message was one of universal brotherhood (sic.) and that anti-semitism was overruled and surpassed by it.

This is similar to attacks on Emma Goldman that claim she supported euthinasia to make her seem sinister and evil and ill-intentioned, when in fact she was simply urging poor women to practice contraception so they did not have to bear children and be further crushed by poverty. People who hate anarchists always try to "Dig up dirt" on them, but they have an agenda behind what they do and are thus dishonest. If they want to criticize someone, they (and you) should criticize themselves.

The national anarchism concept is created by fascists and as we all know, the fascists/nazis whole philosophy is based on lying, injustice, and murdering. The "National Anarchist" section cannot be trusted or relied on for anything. Radical Mallard Sat Mar 18 13:43:46 EST 2006

Anarchist communism

Yes I agree with you over that POV essay (!!).. I can't believe all that stuff was left up there for so long.. --maxrspct in the mud 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Woodworth

Do you have cites for Woodworth's economic beliefs? This is the second time I removed that. I requested citations before but they weren't provided. Note that being an "individualist anarchist" doesn't necessarily mean you agree with Benjamin Tucker's economics.Anarcho-capitalism 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Before Bryan Caplan and James Donald made up a whole bunch of stuff on the Internet back around 1995 (such as the bogus "Anarchist Theory FAQ" and the lies and slanders against the Spanish Anarchists and gave their support for Franco (and Pinochet in Chile) authoritarian state forces), including quoting and listing a whole bunch of non-anarchists who's only "anarchism" was that they hated socialism very much (because, of course, they are capitalists), it was simply a given that Woodworth was the rightful philisophical decendant of Tucker. You people lie and lie and obfiscate and cover things up you dont like (we had tried to have a anarchist FAQ that was regularly posted to USENET newsgroups alt-society.anarchy and alt.anarchism regularly from several Internet site, as is the right and purpose of any real anarchist on the Internet, and your people told the administrators to block and ban us) ... You have far less of any claim to Tucker. Tucker openly said "I am a socialist".. so did the other individualist anarchists/mutualists. They supported the Labor Theory of Value. You people repeatedly try to claim that Tucker is your forebaarer because you can't get around the fact that no "pure capitalist" used the word "anarchism" before the most recent decades.. the same situation with the word "libertarian" (the anti-authoritarian left has been using these terms rightfully for over 100 years) ... yet at the same time you discount their support for the Labor Theory of Value. You cannot have it both ways. Either individualist anarchists such as Tucker and Peacott, who reject your cruel, calculating market domination and authoritarianism are both individualists and socialists, or you must accept that "anarcho-capitalism" and even the concept of "libertarians" who embrace capitalism completely is a recent fabrication.. a group of men in business suits who simply want to rewrite history and steal all positive words describing a society free of private property and the forcible defense of and concentration of wealth through private and public state apparatus. You are trying to steal the words "anarchist", "individualist", "freedom", "liberty", "libertarian" and so on from the vast historical legacy of anarchism (which exists in every free library on earth and in every encyclopedia that went before - but of course you can write whatever you wish here and destroy our history, can't you?), which both rejects capitalism and the state but embraces individualism, egoism, and selfishness. Anarchism is egoism for the worker... capitalism is the system of bosses and control freaks. People who enjoy giving orders and enforcing them with the gun and the baton. If you "anarcho-capitalistS" succeed in reqriting history and forcing everyone to accept that one can only be free if we obey what you and your band of economic criminals say, then it is obvious that any tyranny will be permitted to be written into the world's history, and books will no longer have to be burned.. men like you, and like Bryan Caplan, will make the rules and words and definitions for all of us, and you will always have the law and the guns and the full force of the private and public state on your side, and we all shall be misirable slaves for all of the rest of human history. -Radical Mallard, 12/19/2006, 5:27 AM EST