Editor of M!C here. There are four selections in the book that involve major excerpting from a longer work. (Unless I'm forgetting something; forgive me if I am.) Two of them (Selection #23, Roy Childs's "Big Business and the Rise of American Statism," and #46, Mary Ruwart's "Aggression and the Environment") are 20th century texts from leftish-leaning anarcho-capitalists so presumably not what GhostOfImNotATroll had in mind. There are two "classic" (19th century) texts which are selections heavily excerpted from much longer books -- #25, "Industrial Economics" (an excerpted chapter from Dyer D. Lum's *The Economics of Anarchy: A Study of the Industrial Type*, which is in print a book of about 60pp or so) and #2 the selections from Proudhon's *General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century*, which is in print normally a book of about 250 - 300pp. The rest of the material is, to the best of my recollection, presented without significant excerpting. If it were up to me I would have loved to include far more of both Lum and Proudhon than we were able to include in the book, as well as a number of other 19th century texts that had to be cut entirely from our initial Table of Contents, but as it stands we were already pushing hard against the physical limits for our publisher in terms of length. (I spent several days going through about four or five different drafts of the Proudhon selections, each one gradually diminishing in word count from the last, in order to be able to fit it in under the length constraints.) Of course I would strongly encourage you to read the longer works rather than just counting on my say-so about them, but I will say that as tightly as we had to cut down the selections from *Lum*, there isn't I think any plausible way that Lum's book might have been presented that would make it seem "less" or "more" "pro-market" than it does in the collection. In the case of the selections from *Proudhon* the issue is a bit different, in part because the excerpting had to be even more severe and in part because Proudhon's style of developing ideas is very different from Lum's and in part because Proudhon's point in General Idea is not particularly to answer any questions about whether he's fer or agin' "markets" (or "commerce," which is closer to the terminology he actually uses), but rather to do something somewhat more complicated. Nevertheless, M!C is an attempt to (re)capture and record the strands of a conversation; and some of those strands were developing themes in Proudhon that emerge from passages like those in the selection, so we had to spend a fair amount of time thinking about our purposes in choosing the selections and presenting them in the book. So besides indicating the excerpting, we also explicitly noted all this in the book: > In selecting passages from Proudhon's nuanced and immensely challenging work, we must acknowledge--and indeed insist--that we have not presented anything like the whole of Proudhon's social and economic thought, or even the entirety of his thought about economic forces, contracts, and property. Rather, we have attempted to identify and present a particular *strand* within the tapestry of Proudhon's thought, and, in particular, to present the strand which was best understood by and most influential on the works of later market anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker or Dyer Lum--with such themes as the mutuality of contract, the deformation of markets by privilege, and the transfiguration of property, competition, and exchange in markets liberated from hierarchy. In these passages Proudhon should, to an extent, be read as "Tucker's Proudhon" or "the mutualists' Proudhon;" there are other Proudhons to be found (the Communards' Proudhon, Kropotkin's Proudhon, the syndicalists' Proudhon ...), *and the real thinker himself must be recognized as someone quite as important as, and far more intricate than, any of these.* (p. 11, emphasis added) Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions about how the book was edited.

I think . . . I think I just finished transcribing the “Property in Ideas” controversy from LIBERTY (1890-1891)? Unless something unexpected turns up in my due-diligence scans of the contents for the next few issues.

It's more or less a textbook example of confusing [necessary and sufficent conditions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_conditions). You claimed that attacking racism and patriarchy is a necessary condition for undermining capitalism (without ARP, no UC); the reply treated this as if it were a claim that it is a *sufficient* condition for undermining capitalism (wherever ARP, also UC -- which is equivalent to claiming that without *UC*, no *ARP*, not equivalent to your actual claim), and then proceeded to attack that claim.

Yes, I condemn racialism on individualist grounds. Also on the grounds that it is stupid. I largely agree with Sheldon's statements on the topic.

The entire point of this article is that part of being an individualist is choosing what kind of cooperative relationships and communities you are going to be a part of. Anti-racist solidarity and multicultural communities are exercises of cooperation and community as much as racialism and xenophobia are; and they have the significant advantages that they are forms of cooperation and community which are based on chosen encounters and alliances, and based on evolving and adaptable forms of identification which aren't riveted to a brutalizingly, idiotically collectivist obsession with the genealogical predicament you happen to have been born into.
My recent post On Being Pretty Much O.K. With That. (Factories, Corporate Secrecy, and Free-Market Anti-Capitalism Edition.)

is scanning Vol. 3 of The Liberator.

Anarchist signatures research question: There is an “H. W. Koehn” who appears frequently in the pages of FREE SOCIETY ca. 1902, both as a letter-writer and also responded to by the editors. He describes himself as having been a “comrade and chum” of Dyer Lum’s, wrote some letters against the need for expropriation, made some criticism of state socialists as having a too narrowly materialistic view of life, and was classed by Ross Winn et al. amongst the “philosophic” anarchists (at a time when those folks both used this term as a by-word for Tuckerites, but also as a put-down for anti-insurrectionists, which didn’t necessarily mean the same groups of people). Anyway, question is: is this H. W. Koehn possibly Herman Kuehn, later of Instead of a Magazine, etc.? Or is there some other clear candidate for who it might be?

had a dream last night that involved explaining the technicalities of my position on stateless public property and why I reject Hoppean covenant communities under market anarchy, apparently to my work contact at a recent web development client? I normally don’t remember much of my dreams, but I guess this is the kind of thing that sticks with me.