Talk:Anarchism

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

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Anarchism table template

Template:Anarchism table | Template talk:Anarchism table == TfD nomination of Template:Anarchism table == Template:Anarchism table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Anarchism table. Thank you.

How not to use the term "strawman".

I think shooting trespassers is a good idea.

I don't. I think it's wrong. It's wrong because it involves violence.

Fighting in a war involves violence too. Are you against that?

Strawman.

Huh? How is that a strawman?

Because I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about shooting trespassers.

Right. And the principle you used to justify your position also condems all soldiers.

So it's a strawman. I didn't say anything about soldiers. I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about shooting trespassers. You need to show why that's wrong.

Just a heads up. MrVoluntarist 17:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Before, you said that I used the word "flat-footed" incorrectly, but you were decidedly wrong. Now, you claim that I use the term "straw man" incorrectly. First, I suppose I should start by noting that "straw man" is a term that is composed two words, not one word ("strawman"), as you have mistakenly suggested. So, one way to not use the term "straw man" is to incorrectly call it "strawman," because that's neither a word nor a term. Second, I might suggest to you that, if in the future you feel the need to try to belittle or mock your fellow editors, you might consider consulting an authoritative source. I find that colleges and universities tend to be excellent sources, especially when we're talking about something as mundane and academic as logic and argument. Such resources can usually be discovered rather easily with a search engine like Google. Give it a try.

Now that we have those two points of discussion out of the way, let's take a look at your attempt to show people here "how not to use the term 'strawman.'" In the past, I have indicated to you that I felt that you were exaggerating my positions and attempting to apply my personal policies in ways that make them seem ridiculous. In doing so, you actually misapplied my policies -- and I dutifully showed you how you committed your errors. Now, since you were attacking my policies, and since I contended that you were in fact misapplying them with the goal of making them seem ridiculous, I argued that you were actually attacking a straw man. For maybe a week or more, this seems to have troubled you quite a bit, and you've felt a need to dog me from one end of Wikipedia to the other. I dearly hope that you have not lost too much sleep, for sleep is a precious thing.

So, have I misued the term "strawman" [sic]? From the university web site Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate we see:

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam... The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong... The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made."

Steven Downes writes:

"The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."

Dr. Michael C. Labossiere further writes:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position... This sort of 'reasoning' is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

Dr. Labossiere also provides some pertinent examples. Have a look at them, if it pleases you. It could very well be that Mr. Downes, Dr. Labossiere, California State University and I are using "antiquated," "old," or perhaps even inaccurate Marxist definitions of the term "straw man," but, alas, Merriam-Webster seems mute on the subject, and RJII and Hogeye have yet to prop up a Wikiquote page regarding definitions of the term. I hope that, for the time being, you are content with our word. I also do very humbly suggest that, in the futre, you will do more research ere you attempt to call your fellow editors ignorant. (Yes, this is a joke) --AaronS 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, "straw man" and "strawman" are both used, and you did use flat-footed incorrectly; synonyms of synonyms is not a valid defense. You used the term "straw man" incorrectly. Whenever you accuse an argument of being a "straw man" attack, you must be able to cite specifically how your position differs from the actual position that was attacked. You were never able to do that. If I claim your stated (not secret) position implies something you disagree with, I have refuted it. That's not a "straw man", but a reductio ad absurdum, which is acceptable if each step is valid. In order get out of it, you have to show what additional principle or sub-clause you hold to that prevents your position from implying absurdity. But that's the rub, isn't it? You must first have a position, before you can clarify what it is.

What perplexes me is where your source says: "The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made." If that's the definition you were using, then I don't see why you're bringing it up at all. If the version of a "straw man" I was using was not a fallacy at all, why does it matter that it is one?

What you need to understand is that "straw man" is not a generic catch-all for "arguments I think are flawed". Please, please don't use terms unless you know what they mean and know how to use them. It obstructs debate when I first have to teach you how to use words properly, then go back to addressing your poor or ill-defined position.

By the way, you might consider adding the the "logical extension of your opponent's argument" definition of "straw man" to Wikipedia's strawman article. All the people who edited it ... somehow missed that one. MrVoluntarist 14:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're relying on people having short memories or being too lazy to check the history of this discussion. That's fine. I would have appreciated a more clever response, though. --AaronS 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No sir, conveniently forgetting how others previously demolished your arguments, as well as hoping that people won't see through a claim that the author of "Anarchy and its Breakdown" is an anarcho-capitalist, are your exclusive domain. And I'd love for people to see the strawman discussion, but it -- for some unexplained reason -- keeps getting deleted rather than archived. I appreciate your attempts to save it though. Oh, and the comment you just made? It's a straw man, because I don't agree with it. MrVoluntarist 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now this is the kind of absolutely precious response that I was expecting: accusations of conspiracy, bad faith, and paranoia. That's more like it. --AaronS 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, another word you can't use correctly -- where is the conspiracy allegation? Do you deny that the earlier strawman discussion (involving comparison to some maps) was deleted? That this happened multiple times? That you didn't restore it? Any why is it bad faith when I pointed out you did the same thing you just accused me of? And where is the paranoia? For the hundredth time, use terms correctly. MrVoluntarist 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You claim that someone kept deleting the discussion, and that I was complicit in not attempting to restore it. You then claim that all of my motivations are sinister and malevolent, and accuse me of bad faith. If the only thing you can bring against me is that I don't "use terms correctly," that's pretty petty -- especially when you're wrong. Even if I were using them incorrectly, it's nothing to be upset about, especially not for weeks. That's just, well, weird. --AaronS 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

Aaron's claim: Y is true because: If X then Y. MrVoluntarist's argument: If X then Z; Z is false; therefore not X. Thus Aaron's argument is invalid.

Note that MrVoluntarist's argument doesn't prove Y is false; it simply proves that Y is true because: If X then Y is not a valid argument. If MrVoluntarist had said that Aaron's claim was Z, that would have been a strawman. But MrVoluntarist simply showed to Aaron's satisfaction that X was false. That is not a strawman; that's simply pointing out a false premise.

X is If an action is violent, then it is wrong. Y is The violent act of shooting trespassers is wrong. Z is The violent act of fighting in a war is wrong.

Hogeye 16:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I never made those arguments. This makes no sense whatsoever. --AaronS 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Last chance to retract that before I bring in the evidence. MrVoluntarist 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheesy threats? You are very funny. Go ahead. I'd like to see what has kept you so upset for weeks. --AaronS 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again with the improper terminology. Offering you a chance to change your mind is not a "threat". If there was a "threat" to bring in evidence is was made before the point to which you were responding.

You not claim that you never claimed that you made an argument of the form Hogeye showed. Yet here in this very topic, you claimed that pointing out an undesirable logical extension of someone's argument is a strawman when you quoted someone who said: "The best straw man is ... simply a logical extension ... of an argument your opponent has made." (I'd advise against denying having said this one.) To recall, Hogeye said that responding to "Y because X implies Y" with "X implies Z, and you hold Z to be false" is not a strawman, yet you agree with a source claiming it is a strawman. You are using "straw man" incorrectly.

Further, I invite anyone reading this to view the non-archived, deleted thread here in which Aaron agrees with Sarge Baldy's claim that I was making a strawman argument. My argument was that the same arguments agains the anarchism tree apply just as well to maps which no one would reject as unacceptable for Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy claimed it was a strawman as follows

"Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it" -> You applied the argument we were making to a much less disputable image, where the argument appears weakened

"and pretend that the original has been refuted." -> "omg everything is POV!"

You endorsed this position. This is improper use of the term "strawman". Showing that an argument appears weaker when consistently applied is not a strawman. Ergo, you endorsed its improper use, showing that you fail to understand its meaning. Even if you were right that the map was not POV, while the tree was POV, that would still not make it a strawman -- it would just mean that I have improperly used the term "POV". For it to be a strawman, I must attribute *to you* a position you do not hold. You do hold the position that POV images should not be included.

In the future, Aaron, if you're not immediately able to identify precisely how the argument someone is attacking differs from your own, do not call it a strawman. In general, do not use a term if you are not sure of its meaning. You should err on the side of caution. Using terms incorrectly causes miscommunication. You caused me to believe I was misrepresenting your position, when that was not the case, and much time was wasted finding this out. I appreciate your cooperation on this in future productive discussions. MrVoluntarist 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And before I forget, let me just add that, even if I did predicate an argument on the assumption you held a position, and you really didn't hold that position, that still wouldn't make it a strawman -- you have to actually have stated that position at some point. Part of the purpose of bringing up those maps was to force you to (finally) state what your position actually is and thereby distinguish precisely what user-created images are approriate for Wikipedia. Leaving a vague position and defining it after the fact does not permit you to call every attempt to understand your position a strawman. MrVoluntarist 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I was hoping for something more damning than that. At least something that would have warranted all this stalking and indignation on your part. For all the unnecessarily lengthy talk, though, your "evidence" boils down to this: I claimed that you were ridiculously exaggerating an argument in order to prove that it was wrong. That's a straw man. Just get over it.

That's not what I said at all. Try again. MrVoluntarist 18:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As for your claim that my position was vague, you are wrong, it was not. I clearly stated it many times. I had it on the top of the talk page at some point BUT IT WAS MISTERIOUSLY DELEATED!!!!11! If you chose to ignore that, that's your fault. Honestly, get a hobby, man. This is pretty silly. --AaronS 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you're not going to take this seriously or admit you may have used "straw man" unwarranted. That's fine. I guess from now on, I can call every argument of yours a strawman, and if you get frustrated and want answers, that's just too bad. MrVoluntarist 18:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand what your problem is. A straw man can sometimes be a reductio ad absurdum gone wrong: "perhaps you will only succeed in showing that your opponent's argument does not apply in all cases, That is, using Reductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes using the Fallacy Of The General Rule."[1]

Then it is incumbent upon you to show specifically where it went wrong, not shout "strawman" as if that settles it. That's how productive discussion occurs: by continually clarifying where exactly you stand. MrVoluntarist 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that my standards applied to any other article than this one;

Restricting principles to one specific, named case is always a no-no, whether in law, philosophy, or Wikipedia MrVoluntarist 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just false. --AaronS 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The universality requirement is "just false"??? How the hell did you get through any philosophy courses? "For blacks, I hold the standard that slavery is acceptable, but not for other races." MrVoluntarist 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither validity nor soundness require universality. You're making stuff up. I could very well argue that if I had reasoning to support it. I don't. --AaronS 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

in fact, I explicitly stated that my standards were high for this article because this article is contentious. You ignored that and decided to attack my standard as if it should apply to every article on Wikipedia. That is fallacious in many ways, and could be viewed as a straw man. That's about all I'm going to say. You can continue to stalk me, if that would make you happy. It doesn't bother me. But perhaps you might consider therapy.

Perhaps that was your position. So you should have said, "MrV, what is different between the maps and the tree is that the tree refers to a contentious topic." That wasn't so hard, now, was it? But you weren't in a mood at the time to elucidate your position, were you? By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, gay marriage and the Iraq war are contentious topics, so even that justification doesn't hold up. By refusing to explain the difference, you kept me from understanding how I was straw manning you. Which is forgiveable, because I suspect you didn't know yourself. MrVoluntarist 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did. Do you have eyes? Can they read? Gay marriage and the Iraq war are indeed contentious topics, but what governments allow gay marriage and what governments supported the Iraq war are not. --AaronS 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stay on topic. What constitutes a "maximal penalty" vs. a "minor penalty" is contentious. What constitutes "allowing gay marriage" is contentious. Differentiating governments based on their treatment of gays is contentious. (okay, not really on the last one, but given your anti-classification stance, it's almost plausible) MrVoluntarist 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no anti-classification stance. Now that is a straw man. --AaronS 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On 29 January 2006, I outlined my high standards for this page. I said that we should maintain a NPOV, cite our sources, and make sure our sources are verifiable, among other things. Further, I wrote: "Because this is a contentious topic, I propose that no biased sources be used; I also propose that primary sources should be avoided, and that secondary sources should be preferred." You made your post about the same-sex marriage and Iraq war maps on 5 February 2006. On the next day, more than a week after I had already stated my standards, I stated that I felt that your argument was a straw man. The chronology is correct; you misrepresented my standards. That is a straw man. Let's be done with this, now, it's very silly. --AaronS 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of bringing up the maps was to find out your standard since it seemed (and seems) to be so vague, essentially along the lines of "if I don't like it, it's out". Instead, you preferred to sloppily hurl around terms. Don't tell me the argument is a straw man; differentiate your position from the one attacked. Then, I can learn your position, and then we can have productive discussions about what images are appropriate. My suspicion the whole time was that most of your "reasons" for excluding the tree were just facades; your actions confirmed it. Let's try to say what we really mean from now on. MrVoluntarist 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your indignation is becoming more and more suspect. Basically, you have nothing to be upset about. My standard was never vague; I stated it explicitly more than 1 week before you made your post about the maps. Take a look at the diff link, and stop wasting my time and hijacking this discussion. Get over it. Stop trying to hide the fact that you were either too lazy to read or too partisan to care about my standards by claiming that I never stated them. Sorry, but Wikipedia edit history doesn't lie. --AaronS 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it doesn't lie. Which is why people can go there and see you attempt to differentiate the map and the tree with very bad reasons (though being careful not to give away your full standard -- that would make it too easy to refute!) that I quickly dispensed with. You never had a clear position. You still don't. If an image meets one of your standards, you'll think up another. You'll claim something is original research, and when that's shown not to be the case, you invent a new excuse. Ad infinitum. MrVoluntarist 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Per usual, when you're backed into a corner, you attack personality and character. It's very predictable. If anybody bothers to click on those links (and you apparently haven't), they'll see that you're all talk and very little substance. --AaronS 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don,t use an different secction to make an article about the relation beetween anarchism and "anarcho"-Capitalism

The presentation of anarchism section in english Wikipedia is the worst of all the other ones. It names guys that are related to ultra-conservatives ideologies and to exploitative economics; and I´m sure it´s because of ignorance, imprecitions or vandalism of "anarcho"-capitalists.

I recomend to put in the presententation o beggining of this section the real, phylosophical and historical meaning of Anarchism: A society based in voluntary asociation of autonomous individuals, that is oppose to any form of hierarchy or political oppression and explotative economics.
That includes Capitalism, State, Institutional churches, Army, etc.

You could put here the relation between anarchism and Liberalism (that is not new) , and explain that anarchism is more related to "Anticapitalist" Liberalism like Hodgskin, Jefferson, Emerson, George, Penn, Twain, Paine, etc, than to the "official" Capitalist Liberalism.

Then you can name few lines about anarcho-capitalism (to don´t interrupt the develop of the anarchism article); and link and new article about the relations and differences between Anarchism schools and the non-anarchist school (but libertarian) called "anarcho" capitalism.

Why ?

Because, anarchism is anti-authoritarian school that include both radical liberal and radical socialist that oppose both Statism and Capitalism; in contrast "anarcho" capitalist have in their list of "prophets" many people that in the anarchist perspective aren´t anti-authoritarian. That could confuse a lot of people that don´t know about the issue.

P.D. Anarchism not only oppose to the State, Anarchism oppose to all Authority - bosses included-. Also there is not a virtue to opposse State and not to Capitalism when States in Globalization are controlled by Capitalist.
I´m a firmly individualist, near to mutualism and post-left anarchy but in any way I consider that "anarcho"-capitalists are anarchists. But at same time anarchism always have been related to Liberalism, in special to "anticapitalist" radical liberalism. So "anarcho" capitalism is part of Liberalism we should take a word about the theme, always be clear than they are libertarians not anarchists.--192.188.52.98 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another dumbshit who doesn't know the meaning of "anarchism." Get a clue. Read a definition or something. Hogeye 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No need for insults. He has good points, and promoting your own FAQ isn't "getting a clue". Infinity0 ^talk 20:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

He makes a good point. Very few people here do any real research beyond pulling up FAQ's, written by non-credible POV-pushing authors. RJII 04:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has time when they're dealing with all of the disruption 24/7. Also, unlike some people here, we don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. But it's still no sweat. --AaronS 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What causes the "disruptions" is a lack of knowledge and bad faith. If more people sought out, read, and thoroughly understood real sources instead of POV FAQ's, there would be less "disruptions." But, there's not much one can do about bad faith. There will always be a few rotten apples in the barrel screwing it up for everyone else. RJII 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're always so quick to throw around insults and accusations, RJII. Maybe if you tried to listen once and a while, instead of assuming that everybody who disagrees with you is evil, you'd see a lot more progress. --AaronS 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

All editors should be aware that wikipedia has a strict policy regarding personal attacks. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy

i oppose to directly stating that Leo Tolstoy "was an anarchist". In the article one book is mentioned, and surely that book, The Kingdom Of God Is Within, has inspired many anarchists and has related kinds of thoughts. But in it Tolstoy also directly criticises anarchists and it is clear that he does NOT consider himself anarchist. I think it is a case of excess arrogance to coin him as "anarchist" when he himself makes it clear that he does not consider himself one. I do not oppose saying that his thoughts have inspired others to formulate an ideology called "christian anarchism", but as far as i know, he himself never proposed such an ideology! greetings. Juha Uski, Denmark

Does Tolstoi satisfy the definition of an anarchist? Did he believe that the State was oppressive and should be abolished? Yes, he did. Therefore he was an anarchist. It doesn't matter what he called himself. A lot of anarchists didn't call themselves "anarchist," since at times in certain cultures anarchism was thought to mean violent bombthrower or stupid anti-property socialist. We know better, and go by the definition. (Except for the a dildo is whatever has traditionally been considered a dildo crowd.) Hogeye 14:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, Marx was an anarchist. What is your obsession with dildos? --AaronS 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw man. Hogeye doesn't think Marx was an anarchist. You need to respond to his specific argument why Tolstoy was an anarchist. MrVoluntarist 15:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Geez, are you forgetful! We've already discussed why Marx was not an anarchist, i.e. he wanted to use a State to mold his 'socialist man.' Ergo, he is a statist - the opposite of an anarchist. I know a guy who says that, when he gets old and his teeth fall out, he'll quit eating meat. Would you call him a vegetarian? Hogeye 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not obligated to respond anymore, Hogeye, because by Aaron's use of the term, his argument is a straw man. You never said Marx was an anarchist, so his argument doesn't apply. MrVoluntarist 15:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should take it as a compliment that I can rile both of you up so easily. MrVoluntarist seems to be veritably obsessed with me. I'm flattered, really. But you're both wrong. Marx wanted communism, which has no state. He believed that the state would disappear after the proletariat seized it. That's the bottom line, really -- and your analogy doesn't really work, Hogeye. --AaronS 16:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a strawman though. Hogeye isn't talking about Marx, so your argument is invalid on straw man grounds. And the topic I created was also for Sarge Baldy and I think someone else. So that's another strawman.MrVoluntarist 16:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're using the term straw man incorrectly. In a hilarious ironic turn, your use of it is actually a straw man. It's very funny. --AaronS 16:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm using it correctly. When you claim Hogeye thinks Marx was an anarchist, and he doesn't think that, you're misrepresenting his position. That's a strawman. MrVoluntarist 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he isn't claiming Hogeye thinks Marx is an anarchist, he is claiming that Hogeye's position implies that Marx is an anarchist, which Hogeye disagree with, so his position is contradictory. Reductio ad absurdum. Infinity0 ^talk 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! Finally, someone who disagrees with me yet understands the difference between a reductio and a strawman! You might want to clue Aaron in at some point. MrVoluntarist 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. AaronS never said it was a straw man... Infinity0 ^talk 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• burying face in hands* MrVoluntarist 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read Tolstoy's books, especially Hadji Murad, it's obvious that he's an anarchist. Not necessarily an "anarchist" (of the many available, certified varieties) but someone who criticizes power as something that inevitably reproduces itself to the detriment of everyone. He's more like a celebrity who happens to be an anarchist than an anarchist theorist. You know, very literary, not such a doctrinaire, pacifist, vegetarian (not because of tooth problems, though) and all the rest. Ghandi did name his peaceful resistance training camp "Tolstoy" after all. Daniel Aldana, danielaldana.net 201.248.225.181 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Still a pointless debate

Having had a healthy break from reading the low level of debate on this page, I have come back to it, and it is still completely dire and no nearer of getting anywhere. It should be obvious that it is no good simply relying on dictionary definitions - particularly not stalinist sources like the Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary!!!!. Anarchism is to a great extent a political baloon, which can be filled with hot air and patted around until someone hits it too hard and it bursts.

Fundamentally there is an attempt by some anarcho-capitalists to exercise hegemony here by producing a chart which several people on several occasions have rejected as intrinisically problematic. Furthermore, one of them has been abusive on more than one occasion (e.g: Yet another dumbshit who doesn't know the meaning of "anarchism." Get a clue. Read a definition or something. Hogeye 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)), which inclines me to call for arbitration on this.

The whole chart is completely adrift and meaningless, in that the myth of the general strike has been replaced by the myth of the schools of anarchism, which is merely a form of scholasticism. The last version of the chart is a joke, complete with such notions as "Forced redistribution of private wealth" for anarcho-communism, which is a society where there is no private wealth, in the sense that the abstraction of the bourgeois sovereign individual no more exists than the allocation of property to such a social construct. Likewise, any discussion of what is "allowed" or not "allowed" seems to be at odds with a society without a state or coercion. This so-called economic chart, unsurprisingly, is completely embedded in bourgeois economics - its origins. i.e. it attempts to represent anarcho-communist thought as if anarcho-communist were bourgeois economists!!!

I wish to continue to advocate that the article starts with origins in the French Revolution, and the conception of a political resolution of human problems to create a practical paradise, in contradistinction to previous utopian movements which tended to have a relgious character (in the Christian/Judaic/Islam concept some sort of covenant with god.

One current rejected using the state as a tool of liberation, particularly after the historic experience of the Revolutions of 1848. After that we see Bakunin bobbing around between nationalism and anarchism, but basically trying to tap into any insurrectionary activity regardless of its specific goal. But as industrialisation produced a working class, as distinct from the petit-bourgeois artisans attracted to Proudhonism, then anarchism in Europe came to refer to those willing to use violence in the immediate short term, to achieve their goals as evinced by the split in the socialist league (see Walsall Anarchists. By the time of the police conference of 1898 anarchism was pretty close to the contemporary meaning of terrorism.

The anarchist movement tehn becomes very strong internationally, particularly following teh First World War. But with the collapse of the Proletarian Revolution, partly through the Bolshevik Counter-revolution, anarchism was greatly reduced, except in Spain which succombed twenty years later.

The post war "anarchist movement" has largely been rooted in the middle classes, and since the demise of the Soviet Union has become more popular amongst the radical Intelligentsia, from which has arisen the plethora of different strands (most of which do not constitute anytrghing as formal as "schools".

To achieve this and get away from this bickering I have also proposed a disambiguation page separating anarchism, (social movement) from anarchism, (political philosophy) if only because we might end up with at least one page unfrozen. Perhaps those interested in anarchism, (social movement) could develop that page, until the problems on this have been sorted out! Ps haven't seen latest post bu the social centre is just shutting!!!Harrypotter 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know about this splintering idea. I feel that the political philosophy and movement overlap too much. In some sense every anarchist is an anarchist theorist, even if they don't take pen to paper to write down their own ideas. To say the movement is separate from the thought seems inaccurate. I do think we need an anarchist movement article though, and that the contents of that article should be very well-represented here. Sarge Baldy 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That may not be a bad idea. That seems to be a huge problem --those association anarchism with large "social movements," riots, strikes, and such, conflicting with those those that associate it with philosophical movements. RJII 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How to make anybody you want an anarchist

Just follow these easy steps:

1. Subscribe to a very limited definition of anarchism; i.e. that anarchism is mere antistatism
2. Select quotes that make a person appear anti-statist
3. Only use primary sources; do not quote scholars unless they are from partisan organizations
4. When no scholars can be found, quote supporters of the person in question
5. If all else fails, fall back on the very limited definition

Try it, it's very simple!

Isn't "anarchism is mere statism" a strawman? At least, I've never ever heard anyone who claims that mere anti-statism - being against relatively more government power - is anarchism. I -have- heard people who say that absolutist anti-statism is anarchism. And they are right. An anarchist is not simply someone who thinks particular policies or officials are bad. An anarchist is someone who has -principled- opposition to government in general, the institution itself, all governments of all types. AnarChrist

AnarChrist, I was talking about "absolutist" anti-statism. Those who who do not seek the abolition of the State, but merely its extreme limitation, are usually called minarchists or, in the U.S., libertarians. --AaronS 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not absolutist if you want to use the state (just for a little while, I promise!) to mold your subjects before abolishing it. Since "marxist-anarchists believe that the State can only be abolished "when class distinctions have disappeared," they obviously fail to be anarchists. I guess you think that a man who promises to stop eating meat when he gets so old his teeth fall out is an absolutist vegetarian? - Hogeye

Marxist-anarchism

Marxist-anarchism was first espoused by Karl Marx in the 19th century, although it was not called marxist-anarchism at the time. Marx argued that the State was merely a tool of class oppression. "Political power," he claimed, "is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another." (31) He claimed that, if the proletariat "makes itself the ruling class" by seizing the State from the bourgeoisie, it will "have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." For, capital, according to Marx, is a not just a personal but also a "social" power. (24) Moreover, he noted that Communists "are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality." (28) Marx's goal, like other anarchists, was to abolish the State. The main difference between marxist-anarchists and other anarchists is that marxist-anarchists believe that the State can only be abolished "when class distinctions have disappeared." (31) It is only then that free association can exist and the individual can cease to be alienated, according to Marx: "we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (31) It is in this way that marxist-anarchism is a form of individualist anarchism; the free development of the community is superceded by the free development of every individual. --AaronS 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazist-anarchism

Nazist-anarchism was first espoused by Adolf Hitler in the 20th century, although it was not called nazist-anarchism at the time. Hitler argued that the State was merely a tool of Jewish oppression. "Political power," he claimed, "[is merely the organized power of] the Jews." (31) He claimed that, if the Germans "[makes itself the ruling class]" by seizing the State from the Jews, it will "[have swept away the conditions for the existence of] Jewish antagonisms [and] Jews [generally]" For, Jews, according to Hitler, "killed Jesus". (24) Moreover, he noted that Jews have "half Judaized" America. Hitler's goal, like other anarchists, was to abolish the State. The main difference between nazist-anarchists and other anarchists is that nazist-anarchists believe that the State can only be abolished when "the German race" has taken over "the world" and the "Jews" are "dead" (31) It is only then that free association can exist and the individual can be racially pure, according to Hitler: "This pride of race is a quality which the German, fundamentally, does not possess [because of the Jews]" It is in this way that nazist-anarchism is a form of individualist anarchism; the free development of the community (without hindrance from Jews) is superceded by the free development of every individual.

---

This is a straw man (make sure to read the article). No one's arguing that Marx is an anarchist. MrVoluntarist 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a reductio ad absurdum... He's making the point that your points are invalid, as they lead to a contradiction. Infinity0 ^talk 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone with a brain knows that. The problem is, the roles were reversed just a few weeks ago, and I'm trying to make him feel exactly how I felt when he called a reductio a strawman (without saying how it was a strawman). I made sure to include the condenscending internal link and request that he educate himself. Let's see how he responds to his tactics when the tables are turned! MrVoluntarist 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, ok. Well, I missed that so that's why I'm confused. But, this is pretty funny so I hope you'll forgive me for adding my own bit. Infinity0 ^talk 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I apparently hurt his feelings pretty badly. He's still reeling. --AaronS 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:\\ Well, if you did do that you should probably apologise or something. Infinity0 ^talk 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, your argument is still irrelevant. It's a straw man. (Have you read the article yet?) MrVoluntarist 23:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sir, I sure did. But of course I already understood what the term meant before I read the article. You made the following fallacy with regard to attacking my high standards for this article: "Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." You tried to generalize my standards, applying them to other Wikipedia articles, when I have always said that my standards are specific to this article, because this is a highly contentious article. High contention requires high standards of proof. You misrepresented that position. Voilà. --AaronS 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, this is the first time you've tried to differentiate between the maps and the tree on "contentiousness" grounds. (And of course, as I'll explain in the other topic, they're not different along that dimension.) You may have stated that the article was unique in being contentious some time before, but you you didn't mention it at all when you should have -- when you were trying to use the term "straw man" properly. I'm trying to be reasonable here: how should one respond, on Wikipedia, to someone (like you before) who completely and totally reveals inability to properly use the term "straw man"? I responded to you exactly as you did to me. Now, you're accusing me of inappropriate behavior. Let's back that up. Show me precisely how to respond to the boneheaded argument that "Hogeye didn't say Marx was an anarchist, so it's a strawman." I really want to learn, seriously. MrVoluntarist 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My original comment explains it all: "As for Sarge's position on your argument being a straw man, allow me to reiterate it. I have basically said as much, anyway. The fact of the matter is that you're presenting our position in a weakened form, and then attacking it. That's what a straw man is. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to suggest that a map outlining which nations supported or did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq violates WP:NPOV. And it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that a map displaying which states allow for gay marriage/civil unions and which states punish homosexuality as a criminal offense is reductionist. The thing, MrVoluntarist, is that we're not talking about these maps. These maps are uncontroversial. We're talking about a "chart of anarchist schools and influences" that is mired with problems that have been explained and re-explained numerous times. Please address our points that this chart is reductionist, that this chart violates WP:NPOV, that this chart is original research." Are you read to stop wasting time? This is the last time that I'm going to talk about this non-issue. --AaronS 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. There was nothing "origin"-al about that comment. It came at the very end of that topic. I want to know how I was supposed to respond to the initial ill-posed strawman accusation, not the one you eventually hobbled together. (And by the way, this last response misses the point -- the gay marriage map classifies certain penalties as "minor" vs. "maximal", which is POV/OR, and the Iraq war map "reductionistly" tries to condense entire governments' positions into a few words. You wouldn't allow that on the anarchism article would you? Oh, that's right, because unlike gay marriage and the Iraq war, anarchism is highly controversial, it's so hotly debated, every single day.) MrVoluntarist 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, you are incorrigable. That was the first time I ever said that your argument was a straw man. Now I'm starting to think that you're just full of shit. --AaronS 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I've added your "nazist-anarchism" and "marxist-anarchism" to the Uncyclopedia because they made me laugh :) - FrancisTyers 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Surprise surprise: this wasn't always about you. When I lecture on how to use "strawman" properly, Sarge Baldy should be listening as well. You critiqued my responses to his ill-posed strawman accusation. Let me hear how you would have replied to a Sarge Baldy-like incorrect strawman accusation. I'm not full of shit. I want to know how to handle people like you and Sarge. Seriously. So the tables are turned; see how it feels and tell me how to respond. MrVoluntarist 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that you don't have reasoning to support your conclusions, actions and accusations. --AaronS 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Chill out people, it's just a few words. None of us are stupid; otherwise we wouldn't be editing wikipedia. Infinity0 ^talk 01:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one that has been on a week-long crusade, here. It's no sweat to prove MrVoluntarist's accusations baseless. I just wish that we could spend our time discussing real issues. --AaronS 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive time?

Very little discussion seems to be happening with the current topics. Shall we do some archiving? --AaronS 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Hogeye's on a 24 hour ban for malicious conduct and none of the current discussions are going anywhere anyway. Sarge Baldy 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The ban is actually for a month, now. I wasn't trying to get him banned, but he pretty much sealed the deal for himself. I'm going to wait a bit longer and see if anybody has any problems archiving the current discussions. Then I'll go ahead. Strawman. --AaronS 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed the extension. Sarge Baldy 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I've unprotected the page. Have fun. Sarge Baldy 01:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye sockpuppets have forced me to restrict editing from new users and IP addresses. I apologize to valid editors for the inconvenience. Sarge Baldy 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Feels good to wield power and authority around, hey? RJII 04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He's the most authoritarian damn anarchist I've ever seen! - (paraphrasing a fabulous furry freak brother)

I should have expected a troll like this from you. After Hogeye's last little piece of work, I find it a little difficult to hold him in good faith. I didn't place the ban, and actually feel it was in excess, but I'm not going to refrain from upholding it. Sarge Baldy 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just playing with you. RJII 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are most anarchists atheist or agnostic?

I know Bakunin was very much against religion, but I'm not sure about Kropotkin or Rocker or Guerin. Sarge Baldy said most anarchists have no problem with religion, and I want to see if others agree. - AnarChrist

Kropotkin saw Christian anarchism as the third form of anarchism, after Mutualism and Communism:

"Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian "Mutuellisme," but chiefly as communist-anarchism, to which a third direction, christian-anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern writers." (Anarchism [2], 1905).

But the point isn't really whether major thinkers thought that or not, but whether anarchists did in general. It's true most anarchists aren't religious or spiritual, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence most saw or see the two as incompatible. Sarge Baldy 04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, you're one ignorant sonofabitch! Here's the first hit on a google search:

Thus the French Encyclopdie Anarchiste (1932) included an article on Atheism by Gustave Brocher: `An anarchist, who wants no all-powerful master on earth, no authoritarian government, must necessarily reject the idea of an omnipotent power to whom everything must be subjected; if he is consistent, he must declare himself an atheist.' And the centenary issue of the British anarchist paper Freedom (October 1986) contained an article by Barbara Smoker (president of the National Secular Society) entitled `Anarchism implies Atheism'. As a matter of historical fact the negative connection has indeed been the norm anarchists are generally non-religious and are frequently anti-religious, and the standard anarchist slogan is the phrase coined by the (non-anarchist) socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880: `Ni dieu ni matre!' (Neither God nor master!). But the full answer is not so simple.

...sceptics, esprits forts and libertins, the freethinkers and philosophes, Jean Meslier and Denis Diderot (who both wanted to see `the last king strangled in the guts of the last priest') and Voltaire (whose motto was `Ecrasez l'infeme!'), Thomas Paine (the pioneer of freethought and also of free society, the opponent of Priestcraft as well as Kingcraft) and Richard Carlile (who led the shift towards both atheism and anarchism), and so on to the historical freethought movement.

There is no doubt that the prevailing strain within the anarchist tradition is opposition to religion. William Godwin, the author of the Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), the first systematic text of libertarian politics, was a Calvinist minister who began by rejecting Christianity, and passed through deism to atheism and then what was later called agnosticism. Max Stirner, the author of The Individual and His Property (1845), the most extreme text of libertarian politics, began as a left-Hegelian, post-Feuerbachian atheist, rejecting the `spooks' of religion as well as of politics including the spook of `humanity'.

Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, who was well known for saying, `Property is theft', also said, `God is evil' and `God is the eternal X'. Bakunin, the main founder of the anarchist movement, attacked the Church as much as the State, and wrote an essay which his followers later published as God and the State (1882), in which he inverted Voltaire's famous saying and proclaimed: `If God really existed, he would have to be abolished.' Kropotkin, the best-known anarchist writer, was a child of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, and assumed that religion would be replaced by science and that the Church as well as the State would be abolished; he was particularly concerned with the development of a secular system of ethics which replaced supernatural theology with natural biology.

Errico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero, the main founders of the Italian anarchist movement, both came from freethinking families (and Cafiero was involved with the National Secular Society when he visited London during the 1870s). Elise and Elie Reclus, the best-loved French anarchists, were the sons of a Calvinist minister, and began by rejecting religion before they moved on to anarchism. Sebastien Faure, the most active speaker and writer in the French movement for half a century, was intended for the Church and began by rejecting Catholicism and passing through anti-clericalism and socialism on the way to anarchism. Andre Lorulot, a leading French individualist before the First World War, was then a leading freethinker for half a century.

Johann Most, the best-known German anarchist for a quarter of a century, who wrote ferocious pamphlets on the need for violence to destroy existing society, also wrote a ferocious pamphlet on the need to destroy supernatural religion called The God Plague (1883). Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker), the great Dutch writer, was a leading atheist as well as anarchist. Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, the best-known Dutch anarchist, was a Calvinist minister who began by rejecting religion before passing through socialism on the way to anarchism. Anton Constandse was a leading Dutch anarchist and freethinker.

Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the best-known Jewish American anarchists, began by rejecting Judaism and passing through populism on the way to anarchism. Rudolf Rocker, the German leader of the Jewish anarchists in Britain, was another child of the Enlightenment and spoke and wrote on secular as much as political subjects. In Spain, the largest anarchist movement in the world, which has often been described as a quasi-religious phenomenon, was in fact profoundly naturalistic and secularist and anti-Christian as well as anti-clerical. Francisco Ferrer, the well-known Spanish anarchist who was judicially murdered in 1909, was best known for founding the Modern School which tried to give secular education in a Catholic country.

The leaders of the anarchist movements in Latin America almost all began by rebelling against the Church before rebelling against the State. The founders of the anarchist movements in India and China all had to begin by discarding the traditional religions of their communities. In the United States, Voltairine de Cleyre was (as her name suggests) the child of freethinkers, and wrote and spoke on secular as much as political topics. The two best-known American anarchists today (both of Jewish origin) are Murray Bookchin, who calls himself an ecological humanist, and Noam Chomsky, who calls himself a scientific rationalist. Two leading figures of a younger generation, Fred Woodworth and Chaz Bufe, are militant atheists as well as anarchists. And so on.

This pattern prevails in Britain. Not only William Godwin but nearly all libertarians have been opposed to orthodox religion as well as orthodox politics William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Charlotte Wilson, Joseph Lane, Henry Seymour (who was active in the National Secular Society before he helped to found the British anarchist movement), James Tochatti (who was active in the British Secular Union before he turned to socialism and anarchism), Alfred Marsh (the son of the son-in-law of G. J. Holyoake, who founded the secularist movement), Guy Aldred (who rapidly moved from evangelical Christianity through secularism and socialism to anarcho-syndicalism), A. S. Neill (whose educational work was opposed to religious and ethical orthodoxy as much as to political and social orthodoxy), and so on. And of course Shelley is the poet laureate of atheists and anarchists alike. - Nicolas Walter, Anarchism and Religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogeye (talk • contribs)

Of course anarchists are against the Church, and against orthodox religion. Those are dominating institutions. No one denies that. Most religious anarchists probably want the Church abolished even more than they do the state. And most of the other points are about people finding religion unnecessary personally or unnecessary for anarchism, which isn't at all the same thing as it being incompatible with anarchism. Anarchists, by-and-large, attack religious institutions, not religion itself. The latter would be flatly contradictory to its belief in individual freedom. Sarge Baldy 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have no sources to back it up (since it would be hard to find any sources for this) I think it is fairly mixed. I have met some anarchists who are very anti-religion, but most don't seem to be. I am an agnostic with very very very athiestic leanings, but I support people's ability to believe what they want, as long as they don't force it on others (but they usually do). In addition, I think some religions are fairly positive, such as Wicca/neo-paganism, Unitarian Universalism (not really a religion, but whatever), and anamist traditions both old and new. The Ungovernable Force 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, most of those quotes are not about church, but about god. Clearly many of the anarchist luminaries were atheists ("freethinkers"). Here are some more quotes: Stirner: "God, conscience, duties, and laws are all errors which have been stuffed into our minds and hearts." Bakunin: "Such a solitary and abstract human being is as much a fiction as God." These are not attacks on religious institutions - they are attacks on theism, the stupid belief in supernatural intelligent critters. - Hogeye

Aren't you supposed to be blocked? And why are you identifying your sock puppet anyways? Are you trying to get kicked off? The Ungovernable Force 05:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye sockpuppets

I believe that AnarChrist and 69.50.208.11 are Hogeye sockpuppets. They also seem to have the have the same IP addresses. If this is true, then Hogeye recently vandalized the primary sources template (evidence). Just a heads up. --AaronS 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. He's trying to be sneaky about it, but it's pretty obvious. And you're right, those are pretty sad changes. I think a RfC or RfAr are probably in order. Sarge Baldy 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping that it wouldn't come to that. RJII is already 1 vote away from getting das boot. I suppose it's their own fault, though. Their disruptiveness is inexplicable. Most of us have strong opinions, but, when we don't get our ways, we certainly don't resort to the kind of acting out that has been exhibited by Hogeye. That's the kind of stuff I used to do when I was 13 years old. --AaronS 04:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you dare accuse me of being disruptive. I'm certainly not. And, I'm not going to get "the boot." And, there's certainly nothing you can do to censor me. RJII 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally find your quickness to accuse others of bad faith to be disruptive. It doesn't help the discussion. And you've held a grudge against me ever since the first time I ever disagreed with you. And you will get the boot if that RfAr does not bode well, and it's already 5-0. To be honest, I think that it's harsh, but, hey, you earned it. --AaronS 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not about disagreement. There are a lot of people I have disagreements with here that I think operate in good faith, and I think are really cool people. I would even hang out with them. And, I know what the vote is. The arbitrators have been misled by a few people upset because they couldn't get their way because I provide sources, so they scoured the years worth of history to find personal attacks to try to censor me. Very immature. Whatever. I'm not going to banned. The arbitrators know how silly the arbitration is. They have to put on a display of concern to pacify the babies. I'm not going anywhere on anyone's terms but my own. RJII 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a strange attitude to have. Also, I don't buy your whole "you're the only problem" schtick. I've seen how you play with others. And it isn't nice. --AaronS 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not going to get into a bickering match with you. We all know how much you're into that. Conversation over. RJII 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ending this conversation on anyone's terms but my own. --AaronS 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey does this mean if I have the time and can go and vote RJII off! They certainly seem to find it hard work on wikipedia. No-one is concerned whether they are "disruptive" in some abstract [[world composed of rights, constructed as much from moral platitudes as rhetorical ethics - "the world is everything that is the case" - No. Whilst imagining what such a world would be like is very dear to our hearts, as human beings, our actions are not those of a machine. Our deliberations disturb the cosmos. I am sure RJII is ready for a Quantum Leap in terms of interpersonal maturity so that he does not succomb to the Hell of banishment. But then I am ever the optimist.Harrypotter 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! Here's the professional-looking chart, with an image map for easy clickin':

Anarchism by School - Clickable Chart

Very very innovative. I like it. RJII 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The page looks pretty good right now! However, do we really need all those tags and extra white space at the beginning? That part looks ugly. Personally, I would suggest removing the tags. If someone believes that a claim the article makes needs a source, that person should just post the disputed claim on the talk page and say something like, "Unless someone can cite a source for this in three days, I'm removing this sentence from the article." Repeat that enough times, and the number of unsupported claims will drop sharply. As far as the neutrality of the article being disputed, that seems pretty generic. It's a big article, so can the neutrality tag be moved to the specific sections that are disputed? Just some thoughts. -- Blah99 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First use of 'anarchy' by sans-coulottes claim

This comic-book claim has been busted before, but it keeps coming back.

Although there is no evidence that Ponet used the word "anarchy" or any of its derivatives, there is proof that the term was used to identify the "absence of government" and "a state of lawlessness" or "political disorder" by other six- teenth and seventeenth century writers. The term itself may have been derived from the medieval Latin anarchia and the French anarchie, which were cited by Randle Cotgrave's A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues, published in 1611. The earliest entry for the use of the word "anarchy" in lhe Oxford English Dictionary is from the 1552 edition of Richard Taverner's Proverbs or Adages with New Additions, Gathered out ojthe Chiliades of Erasmus, originally published in 1539: "This unlawful liberty or licence of the multitude is called an Anarchy."14 By the 1640s in England it was common to find the word "anarchy" being used quite seriously. In a tract entitled The Resolving of Conscience (1642), attacking the social contract theory of government, Henry Ferne wrote that if the doctrine of the original power of the people "must be a Fundamentall" then "it is such a one as upon it this Government cannot be built, but confusion and anarchy may be readily raised."15 Clement Walker in his Anarchia Anglicana, or the History oflndependency, The SecondPan (1649) referred to those "who under colour of merchandise vent antimonarchical and anarchical tenets."16 The term "anarchy" was apparently not confined to the political sphere for there was an early realization of the connection between religious freedom and liberty of conscience and political freedom. "Preaching before the House of Commons on 26th May 1647, Thomas Case denounced liberty of conscience as opening the floodgates of anarchy." - "Oh, Ye Are For Anarchy!": Consent Theory in the Radical Libertarian Tradition, by Carl Watner

The term had been around at least two and a half centuries before the sans coulottes.

Separating movement from theory

Yes, separating Anarchism (theory) from Anarchism (movement) may have some good consequences.

• Some people seem to define "anarchism" in terms of movements (a dildo is whatever had traditionally been considered a dildo). Separating articles would allow these editors their own sandbox. I, for one, wouldn't touch a movement article with a 10-foot pole. I'm in it for the political philosophy.

• As mentioned, there is a good chance that at least one will be unprotected.

• It is possible that the socialist faction and the open-tent faction will informally agree to work on "their own" article, and not fuck with the other one. Let the socialists have the movement article, and the open-tents have the theory article.

• It may help shorten the articles. All the movement shit, like e.g. the Spanish Civil War trivia, could be cut from the theory article and put in the movement article.

A separation of articles probably wouldn't help. We're dealing with dildoism, rather than dildos. Ideologies develop in ways that are a little more complex than, say, improvements in sex toys. If we go ahead and just deal with the anarchism as something with a complex history, then there are problems, but not insurmountable ones. From what I can see, the movement people are mostly concerned that oversimplified, presentist schemes of categorization simply don't fit the historical facts. For instance, if you make Proudhon, De Cleyre or Greene submit to the customer either collectivist or individualist standard of most current debates, you're simply not going to be able to correctly account for their position—either in philosophical or movement terms—because they depend on a principle of synthesis or balance. At least scupulous attention to historical development lets us come to grips with why particular labels and languages of explanation were picked up and discarded at particular times. Libertatia 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

More classification of schools

The Mutualist Anarchist FAQ uses the terminology that RJ and I prefer - individualists vs collectivists. The InfoshitFAQ is clearly influenced by Guerin - that's where they got the neologism "social anarchism." Interestingly enough, Guerin was French and actually used the word "societaire." Thus, a better translation would be "societarian anarchism." But Guerin is really not reliable, since he is a hardcore partisan anarcho-syndicalist. In his scheme, the only significant individualist was Max Steiner (he doesn't even mention American IndAs) who really had little influence. For Guerin, there is no tree, but a single linear evolution to (of course) anarcho-syndicalism. I.e. Proudhon-Bakunin-Kropotkin-Anarcho-syndicalism. Good news: Guerin's whole book is online. Anarchism: From theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin. The stuff I just wrote about is mainly in the Preface. - Hogeye

I think you're right. I think "collectivist" is better. I suggested using "social anarchism" before because I know how much people are into their FAQ's, but I can see now that makes things even more complicated. RJII 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Another interesting thing: Guerin claims that Proudhonian mutualism died shortly after the first international. He claims that all the Proudhonians (P himself was dead) were converted to Bakunian collectivism at that time.

That sounds about right. Everbody over there got swept up with the influence of Marx. In the meantime American liberal anarchism was brewing, then the Euro-communists came over and, as Wendy McElroy puts it, "flooded the country like cheap imports" preaching expropriation and bombs. And, the two schools clashed philosophically and were critical of each other, with both claiming the other wasn't real anarchism. American mutualism was attacked as being too much like liberalism. And American individualist shot back that anarcho-communism was unnatural, "pseudo-anarchism" and required violence to achieve due to its unnaturalness. Individualism carried on, though, through philosophy, with most individualists eventually adopting the subjective theory of value due to innovations in economics. Hence, modern anarcho-capitalism. And, left anarchists today are attacking anarcho-capitalism as being liberalism, still refusnig to acknowledge the possibility of private property being consistent with anarchy. RJII 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice a bizarre parallel between socialist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - they both have a "division" based on territorial vs non-territorial provision of services. In the socialist anarchist realm, the two visions of organization are the "commune," which is a territorially-based collective - basically what we would call a town or municipality; and the workers' union (syndicate), a non-territorial collective based on type of labor one does. This split between territorial communes and non-territorial syndicates is precisely the difference between anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists. For anarcho-capitalists, the split is between the territorial Heathians, who favor the multi-tenant property model, and the non-territorial Tannahillians, who favor competing insurance firms as PDAs. The anarcho-capitalists don't make such a big deal out of this difference, believing that, hey, what works, works, - let the market decide. - Hogeye

Saint Chomsky sez: Anarchism\'s Roots are in Liberalism

\"If one were to seek a single leading idea within the anarchist tradition, it should, I believe, be that expressed by Bakunin when, in writing on the Paris Commune, he identified himself as follows:

I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each---an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being---they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom.[12]

These ideas grew out of the Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau\'s Discourse on Inequality, Humboldt\'s Limits of State Action, Kant\'s insistence, in his defense of the French Revolution, that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved. With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. This is clear, for example, from the classic work of Humboldt, The Limits of State Action, which anticipated and perhaps inspired Mill. This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist.\" - Noam Chomsky, Preface to Guerin\'s \'\'Anarchism\'\'.

(He has a really stupid take on Humboldt. That book is online and I\'ve read it. Construing it as anti-capitalist is preposterous. Humboldt did figure out federalism here, long before Proudhon.) - Hogeye

Coercion

I request a source for the claim that some argue that getting a job is "coercive." No educated anti-capitalist I know refers to that as coercion, but rather "exploitation." In other words, it's consensual but taking advantage of the worker's low bargaining power and desperation so that he agrees to be paid less than his labor is worth. RJII 19:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Provided the source. Search for "coercive" and/or "forced" and/or "capitalism". Infinity0 ^talk 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to... both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. Infinity0 ^talk 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Very vague. Unacceptable. It doesn't say getting a job is coercion. Anarchists typically associate capitalism with the state, anyway. Also, FAQ's aren't credible sources anyway. RJII 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting a job is capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided a source that getting a job is "coercive." Moever, the FAQ is not a credible source. Do some research. What is wrong with you? RJII 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The source passes Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources

• Is not a bulletin board
• Is not a personal blog
• Is not a partisan website

Moreover, the specific claim is from "Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38. The relationship between workers and employers is what is widely recognised as part of capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source that claims "wage slavery" is "coercive." By the way, Infoshop is a "partisan website." They oppose anarcho-capitalism. RJII 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as most anarchists oppose anarcho-capitalism, I don't know how that necessitates it as "partisan". Sarge Baldy 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop is not extremist. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_websites. Also, the claim is only that SOME PEOPLE think it coercive. [3] contains numerous references to coercive wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Provide a quote that says wage labor is coercive. RJII 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous ones in that source. Search for "coercive" and/or "wage labour". Infinity0 ^talk 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists point out that for choice to be real, free agreements and associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination, as was recognised even by Adam Smith (see below).

Infinity0 ^talk 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that quote says almost exactly the same words I wrote. I'm a genius. Infinity0 ^talk 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source that wage labor is coercive. RJII 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Read up ^^ Infinity0 ^talk 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it not say that wage labor is coercive, but it is not a scholarly source. It is an anti-capitalist website. A FAQ written by an unknown author. It's bogus. Do some real research instead of looking to FAQ's. RJII 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It says "opponents argue that". Not every resource is NPOV; if you wish it to be then remove ALL the references. Infinity0 ^talk 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It says "social relations between capitalists and employees" are coercive, which is what the claim is. Infinity0 ^talk 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No intelligent person would make such a statement. They would say "exploitative." Obviously it was written by a dope. We need scholarly sources --people with PhD's in political philosophy, economics, etc. Not FAQ's written anonymously from POV websites. RJII 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, "economic coercion" is coercion. Get over it, and stop being so stubborn in that your own views are right. You're like a religious fundamentalist. Infinity0 ^talk 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If educated people think there is such a thing, why can't you provide any sources? RJII 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference in the amount of POV between Infoshop.org and a published anarcho-capitalist author. You look at the CONTENT of the writing in judging its quality, not its author. And the infoshop FAQ is VERY well written, NOT by "a bunch of dopes". Read it yourself, you might find different ways of thinking. Infinity0 ^talk 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The AUTHOR is exactly what you need to look at. The author IS the source. An article with no author or by one that has no qualification to comment is irrelevant. RJII 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

THEREFORE, ALL SOURCES from anarcho-capitalist authors are PARTISAN and SHOULD BE DELETED. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to provide sources that economic coercion isn't coercion? I've actually provided you with 2 or 3, in Talk:Capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk

No you haven't. You're simply being disruptive and dishonest. RJII 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop stalling. Even if a well-known author thinks "economic coercion" isn't coercion, what is that but his own POV? Infinity0 ^talk 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to indulge your inane incoherent attemps at argumentation. Provide a sources that wage labor is coercion. RJII 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It says that right above, read it. Infinity0 ^talk 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And, even if it did, it wouldn't matter. It's not a credible source. RJII 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Me: Why not?
• RJII: Because it's a FAQ.
• Me: But the article only says "some people think this" and the FAQ is a source showing that some people think this.
• RJII: It doesn't say that wage labour is coercion.
• Me: It says that the employer-employee relationship is coercion, which is what the article says.
• RJII: That doesn't matter. The FAQ isn't a credible source.
• Me: Why not?
• RJII: Because it's a FAQ.

...

I rest my case. Infinity0 ^talk 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You lose your case. FAQ'S CAN BE credible sources, IF, first of all, we know who wrote that FAQ. Secondly, if the author is a credible source. You don't know who wrote the FAQ and whether he's qualified to comment. Hogeye recently wrote an anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Would you allow us to cite his words? RJII 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC) RJII 21:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

THEREFORE, ALL SOURCES from anarcho-capitalist authors are PARTISAN and SHOULD BE DELETED, since it's all POV and therefore UNQUALIFIED to be here. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If Hogeye's website was a major site with lots of visitors, then it can be cited as an example of anarcho-capitalist views. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong answer. The answer is no. Just because an article has a lot of visitors, it doesn't mean the article is written by a credible source. You have no clue how Wikipedia's sourcing policy works. And I'm sure it's futile to explain it to you because you don't seem to be able to grasp ANYTHING. RJII 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the list of authors is in the "Introduction". Infinity0 ^talk 21:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"This FAQ was written by anarchists across the world in an attempt to present anarchist ideas and theory to those interested in it. It is a co-operative effort, produced by a (virtual) working group and it exists to present a useful organising tool for anarchists on-line and, hopefully, in the real world. It desires to present arguments on why you should be an anarchist as well as refuting common arguments against anarchism and other proposed solutions to the social problems we face." In other words, it's written by a group of non credible authors like with Wikipedia. That's like citing the words of *you* in a Wikipedia article. Moreover, it blatantly says it "desires to present arguments on why you should be an anarchist" and "we should dedicate this anarchist FAQ to the many on-line "libertarian" capitalists who, because of their inane arguments, prompted us to start this work. Then again, that would give them too much credit. Outside the net they are irrelevant and on the net they are just annoying" in other words, it's baised and POV. It's not a credible source by any stretch of the imagination. RJII 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me just ask you, RJII, is that FAQ well written and researched, or not? Infinity0 ^talk 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. But the interepretations may be TOTALLY flawed because the interpretations may not made from people qualified to interpet the sources they present. Does ANYONE that worked on it have a PhD in political philosophy? Do any other authors have published books? How do we know which author said what? It's a terrible source. Not credible by Wikipedia standards. RJII 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

When you review a book, you READ the book then judge its content. If it's a load of crap, then the content is a load of crap. Good books make good authors, good articles make good authors, NOT the other way round. To judge the reliability of an article, you READ the article, not check up on the author. Infinity0 ^talk 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia we judge the SOURCE --in other words, the AUTHOR. How backwards is your thought process?! You never cease to amaze me. "To judge the reliability of an article, you READ the article, not check up on the author." That's INSANE. You have NO IDEA of how sourcing works. RJII 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then cite policy showing that Infoshop.org is a bad source. All your objection amount to "I don't know who the author is". All their names are on the introduction section, then go research the names. Infinity0 ^talk 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How about I just take you to arbitration? RJII 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't make idle threats. Cite the policy that says Infoshop.org shouldn't be a source. Infinity0 ^talk 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an idle threat. I'll take this to the next level if you don't stop your insane disruptions.

"Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them...Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." [4] RJII 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC) In other words, you can say that Infoshop.org says such and such, but you can't use them as a source. RJII 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But the interepretations may be TOTALLY flawed because the interpretations may not made from people qualified to interpet the sources they present. - the article only says that SOME PEOPLE THINK THIS WAY. Your point is completely invalid; it matters not that it's the authors' POV, since the article acknowledges it. Infinity0 ^talk 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If those "some people" are nobodies, it doesn't matter. It someone qualified to comment says it, like a professor of political philosophy then sure. RJII 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite policy showing Infoshop.org is an unacceptable source. It fulfills Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. Infinity0 ^talk 21:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them...Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." [5] RJII 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC) In other words, you can say that Infoshop.org says such and such, but you can't use them as a source. RJII 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source."

They call themselves anarchists. Just as "members.aol.com/vlntryst" is a source, so is Infoshop.org. In fact, infoshop.org is even larger than that. Infinity0 ^talk 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that is what anarchists think. That website is run by anarchists. So, the source is valid. Infinity0 ^talk 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." RJII 22:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is refers to facts, not opinion. Infoshop.org is a source of opinion, which is what is required.

From Paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain:

Anarchism - Iain McKay’s polemic (Weekly Worker September 25) against my letter (September 18) begins with either a misunderstanding or a deliberate distortion of my first point.

Iain McKay is notable; otherwise the writer of that article wouldn't have bothered to reply to him. Infinity0 ^talk 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How is Iain McKay notable? Secondly, how do you know what portion of the FAQ he wrote? RJII 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He was one of the major contributors. So, he had access to all of it and will have gone through all of it.Infinity0 ^talk 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The following self-proclaimed anarchists are (mostly) responsible for this FAQ:

• Iain McKay (main contributor and editor)
• etc

His Iain McKay notable. What makes him an authority on anarchism? Does he have any published papers? A PhD in Political Philosophy at least? RJII 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes members.aol.com/vlntryst notable? Iain McKay runs an anarchist website (he's one of the admins)

• He's one of Infoshop.org's huge variety of authors: [6]
• Iain McKay mentioned quite a lot on CPGB.org.uk (mostly as an opponent) [7]

Infinity0 ^talk 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm mentioned a lot on Wikipedia. Does that mean you can cite me as a source? For all we know Iain Mckay is just someone that gets in a lot of internet debates. I ask again: What makes him an authority on anarchism? Does he have any published papers? A PhD in Political Philosophy at least? RJII 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should he have any published papers or a PhD for him to be an anarchist, and an opponent of the view? Your requirements are completely irrelevant to the point of the source - to show anarchist opinion. He's written a lot of articles for Infoshop.org, check the archives. You haven't written anything for any website. Infinity0 ^talk 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye says he's an anarchist and write articles I've seen on several websites. He gets on debates all over the place. Does that mean we can site him? Just because Iain Mckay calls himself an anarchist and makes a lot of noise, that in itself is not a qualification for being an authority on anarchism. So, apparently he's not a credible source. RJII 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which website does Hogeye write for? If it's notable, then yes. The article is calling for an anarchist, not an authority on anarchism. You're missing the point. He IS an anarchist, and he and many others have written the FAQ, showing that's what they think. Infinity0 ^talk 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone calls himself an anarchist that is not good enough. Just because you're an anarchist it doesn't mean you're a qualified intellectual authority on what anarchism is. RJII 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, missing the point. He and many others are anarchists, and those are their thoughts. The article states, "opponents argue that". Source is good and relevant and gives backing to the claim that "opponents argue that". Infinity0 ^talk 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources.

Infoshop.org isn't extremist, and even if it was, it's a primary source showing what they think, so it's valid. Infinity0 ^talk 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can use it as a primary source to say what they think. That's EXACTLY what I've been trying to tell you. Congratulations for taking 2 hours to understand something so elementary. But, you can't use it as a credible source on anarchism. RJII 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop.org are opponents of anarcho-capitalism. The article says opponents think this. Infoshop.org thinks this. Infinity0 ^talk 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But they're not notable scholarly opponents of anarcho-capitalism. It's just a bunch of uneducated internet dopes that got together and wrong a FAQ as far as I can tell. RJII 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And that's different than this article... how? Sarge Baldy 17:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not different. That's my point. Just like we shouldn't cite our own writings in Wikipedia, we shouldn't cite the writings by people unqualified to comment in the Infoshop FAQ. Think of where such a standard would lead. Someone writes an article that is not qualified to comment. Then, Wikipedia cites that article. Another article then cites, Wikipedia. Yet another article sites that article, ad infinitum. You're just propagating non-credible material. Don't cite things unless they are from credible qualified sources. Someone with a PhD is Political History is much more likely to have a more correct interpretation of primary sources, than Joe Internet-Anarchist. To trust Joe's interpretation, or 10 Joes that got together to write a FAQ is irresponsible. It is not encyclopedic. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia --that would be laughable. RJII 21:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going out now. I promise to have drink at dinner to your ignorance. I'll be back tommorow and we can go at it again. RJII 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You have such an imagination. Would uneducated internet dopes be able to put together such a well written and researched FAQ? Infinity0 ^talk 22:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A) We can evaluate the reliability of a work separate from the reliability of the authors - does the work give reasonable arguments for its claims? Does it cite supporting evidence where appropriate? Is it widely respected by those in the relevant field (in this case, anarchists)? In all these senses, the Infoshop FAQ is a reliable source. But B) the claim that wage labor is coercive is not simply being made by the Infoshop FAQ authors, they quote this claim being made by prominent anarchists, for instance AJODA, as has already been mentioned, and Bob Black. C) References to anarchists asserting that wage-labor is coercive are all over the fucking place - see Berkman's ABC of Anarchism, where he refers to 'wage-slavery', or this interview with Chomsky where he describes the view that "wage labor is little different from slavery" as an example of "a real anarchist strain" in the labor movement. D) Perhaps you should you give some sources for your bizarre view that educated anti-capitalists think that the problem with wage labor is that is exploitative, rather than coercive (some anti-capitalists, particularly Marxists, think that wage labor is coercive precisely because it is exploitative in the technical, non-moral, sense)? VoluntarySlave 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Anarchist FAQ is the absolute most reputable source on the internet for anarchist theory, bar-none. The arguments it makes do not have to be written by "professionals" as long as the citations are in there, and it is full of such citations. The FAQ has such a long and elaborate list of citations (much of which are actually available in public domain books, since anarchist theory stems so far back, and many writers declaimed copyright) that it is an accomplishment in and of itself. To say that the Anarchist FAQ is not a credible source of information is to slander all the hard work that was put into it. Wikipedia itself is not written by "professionals," and yet Wikipedia considers itself a valid source of information (expressly using citations as a reason for that claim). Since the Anarchist FAQ is full of such citations (and source links), it can be considered a defacto document of anarchist theory. Period. --72.161.163.184 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's put together by people that have no academic qualifications that I can tell. It even says in the introduction of the FAQ that the purpose the FAQ is to condemn anarcho-capitalism: "It was started in 1995 when a group of anarchists got together in order to write an FAQ refuting Libertarian Capitalist claims of being anarchists. Those who were involved in this project had spent many an hour on-line refuting claims by these people that capitalism and anarchism could go together. Finally, a group of net-activists decided the best thing was to produce an FAQ explaining why anarchism hates capitalism and why "anarcho" capitalists are not anarchists." I don't think it's a credible source as far as Wikipedia standards for sourcing. "Net activists"? LOL. That's worthless credentials. RJII 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between that and wikipedia? By discrediting them you are at the same time discrediting us. What qualifications do we have to make us an "authority on anarchism"? Infinity0 ^talk 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not different from Wikipedia. That's my point. Just like we shouldn't cite our own writings in Wikipedia, we shouldn't cite the writings by people unqualified to comment in the Infoshop FAQ. Think of where such a standard would lead. Someone writes an article that is not qualified to comment. Then, Wikipedia cites that article. Another article then cites, Wikipedia. Yet another article sites that article, ad infinitum. You're just propagating non-credible material. Don't cite things unless they are from credible qualified sources. Someone with a PhD is Political History is much more likely to have a more correct interpretation of primary sources, than Joe Internet-Anarchist. To trust Joe's interpretation, or 10 Joes that got together to write a FAQ is irresponsible. It is not encyclopedic. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia in a scholarly article --that would be laughable. Wikipedia is not a credible source. RJII 21:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what's the point of wikipedia? Infinity0 ^talk 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for quick access to information that is hopefully correct for informal research --maybe a tool to assist in getting ideas or sources for a real research. Anyone who trusts Wikipedia articles enough to cite the editorial matter is a fool. Most people working on Wikipedia are unqualified to comment on what they're commenting on. I don't lend credence to anything I read in Wikipedia, other than direct quotes from qualified sources (Academically qualified individuals). Wikipedia will never be a credible source. RJII 22:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by non-credible, exactly? Are you contesting their own claims that they are anarchists? The article cites them as a primary source, ie. their own thoughts. So, what's the problem? Infinity0 ^talk 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Formally educated in the area they're commenting on. I know you don't one doesn't have a formal education to know what one is talking about, but there's little reason to believe that someone that doesn't have one knows what he's talking about. What Wikipedia is, is a place, where anyone can comment. You don't need academic qualifications. But, it's not anarchy. The material needs to be sourceable, and the sources need to be credible, even though the editorial doesn't. RJII 22:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're disputing that the writers of Infoshop.org are anarchists. Why? Infinity0 ^talk 22:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that they're anarchists. I believe that they're anarchists. But, being an anarchist is not good enough. You have to be an anarchist that is qualified to comment on anarchism if you're going to be cited as a source in an encyclopedia. RJII 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all anarchists have a university degree in anarchism. Infinity0 ^talk 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Too bad for them. We shouldn't pay attention to them, unless they have verifiable qualifications to comment. If not a PhD in political philosophy then at least published books on the subject that are respected and reviewed by academics. RJII 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in question isn't giving an objection view on anarchism; it's stating a subjective view of some people. No qualification is needed to have an opinion; and that opinion is mainstream enough to be included. Infinity0 ^talk 22:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Given the edit history of this article yesterday, I have protected the article to prevent further edit warring. I would also mind people to refresh themselves of our policies regarding reversions and edit warring. Please continue to discuss the issue here, being mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. In order to build a consensus it might be wise to advertise at the pump, WP:RFC or pages related to the dispute or the article in question. Once a consensus is established, please respect it. To request the page be unprotected, either contact me or use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Steve block talk 22:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Once a consensus is established.."

LOL! Earth to Steve: this is the anarchism article, and this is Wiki. There's no way in hell there will ever be consensus even on the fucking definition. The only way there's even a miniscule chance of of avoiding edit wars here is to split the article into e.g. anachism (anti-statist) and anarchism (anti-capitalist) or maybe anarchism (theory) and anarchism (movement). Even banning everyone from one faction won't help, since new people will come in an rekindle the war. - Hogeye

Er, you mean that the same people will try to get new accounts or post anonymously. --AaronS 14:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That, too. Some people will simply ignore the lame blocking attempts by petty tyrant administrators. - Hogeye

Re: Citing infoshop

Copied from WP:RS:

It's a partisan source: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

What's being sourced, and in what article? Steve block talk 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism: Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) [8]

The source is being used as a primary source to give evidence for the above claim, that "opponents of a-capitalism think... etc", since Infoshop.org are "opponents of a-capitalism". Infinity0 ^talk 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's from this section, yeah?

• Most self-described anarchists deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, arguing that capitalism runs contrary to an egalitarian power structure and is an inherently authoritarian institution. Anarcho-capitalists argue that many dictionaries define anarchism as being a "rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority," which they say includes anarcho-capitalism.

• Opponents argue that the relationship between workers and employers is a form of authority; anarcho-capitalists disagree, arguing that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) [31] and that it is essential to anarchism for them to be abolished.

Okay, first up it's not great text, you've got two uses of the phrase "opponents argue". These may be weasel words, and so it might be better to cite the opponent or opponents in question in the text. As to citing Infoshop, first up I want to clarify: is this FAQ editable by antbody? For example, is it possible for me to edit it to place a statement, and then come here and reference it? If so, I can't accept it as a reliable source. Steve block talk 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It may be closed for editing now. But, at one time it was open for anyone that wanted to contribute. I believe it was put together on Usenet by anyone that wanted to contribute. RJII 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "An Anarchist FAQ" are submitted to and reviewed by the main contributors: [9]. As long as "opponents argue" are cited, they aren't weasel words. Infinity0 ^talk 22:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So it's like a Wikipedia, but more hierarchical. Some self-appointed authority figures have to review it first. RJII 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They are obviously well-accepted by the infoshop community, since it's the largest anarchist website on the net. Infinity0 ^talk 22:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they are the largest anarchist website? And who cares if they're accepted by the "infoshop community"? I havent' seen any scholarly papers cite the Infoshop FAQ. Why should we? The idea of citing it is absurd. It's laughable. RJII 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rankings. Give me a minute and I'll go find them. Infinity0 ^talk 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This FAQ comes up as the third hit for a Google search on "anarchism." Infoshop's traffic ranking is 83,657. For comparison, the rankings of two major anarcho-capitalist web sites, Anti-State.com and Anarchism.net, are 325,461 and 1,235,924, respectively.

The site has several mirrors, so I assume that that number is a bit lower than it is in reality. Also note the Alexa category for Anarchism.net: "Society / Politics / Liberalism / Libertarianism / Anarcho-Capitalism."[10] Compare that to the category for Infoshop.org: "Society / Politics / Anarchism / Infoshops."[11] It's just interesting to see that some of us editors aren't the only "crazies" suggesting such categorization. --AaronS 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They are a community of anarchists, so their opinion counts.

• Infoshop.org rank 83,657
• Radio4All.org 618,658
• Anarchism.net rank 1,235,924
• Struggle.ws 1,531,523
• BlackCrayon rank 2,339,408

etc. Infinity0 ^talk 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, the cite does avoid the phrase being completely weaselly, but using the phrase twice in such proximity is rather confusing, I'm still not entirely clear on what the paragraph is trying to say. Do we have a source for the first Opponents argue in the text I have quoted above? As to the Infoshop stuff, basically, we're using them as a cite for that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery).

I think the following, excerpted from infoshop, makes the point that Infoshop[ believes anarchists view capitalism as coercive, doesn't it?

• "The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

However I can't find the term wage slavery as yet, although I may be a little dense. I'm not sure I'd declare Infoshop a reliable source entirely, but I would certainly say it's acceptable to source their opposition to anarcho capitalism, given the statement a group of net-activists decided the best thing was to produce an FAQ explaining why anarchism hates capitalism and why "anarcho" capitalists are not anarchists. from [12]. It's a partisan source, but it's acceptable to source their opinion. The reader can quickly establish the substance of the source for themselves. I would prefer it if, seeing as we have an article on Infoshop.org, we actually quote them in the text, perhaps opponents such as the net activists at Infoshop.org have argued... Steve block talk 23:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I dislike that, since it's bloated and it implies they are the only ones who hold that view. I suppose, only if it's absolutely necessary. Infinity0 ^talk 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we cite other opponents? Steve block talk 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop.org is the major internet source for anarchism. To get other sources I'd need to get books, which atm I don't have. Infinity0 ^talk 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Would the quotes from the Infoshop.org FAQ do? They are from printed books by authors with credentials. Infinity0 ^talk 23:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage slavery on the Infoshop.org FAQ Infinity0 ^talk 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve block talk 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The first "opponents argue" can be merged into the second, I suppose. They're basically the same point. Infinity0 ^talk 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Steve block talk 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Published sources:

(The automobile companies drew upon additional covert instruments of a private nature, usually termed vigilante, such as the Black Legion). These were, in effect, private armies, and were sometimes described as such. The territories owned by coal companies, which frequently included entire towns and their environs, the stores the miners were obliged by economic coercion to patronise, the houses they lived in, were commonly policed by the private police of the United States Steel Corporation or whatever company owned the properties." - [David Weick, Anarchist Justice, pp. 223-224]

"[w]ithin Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. . . Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now." - [Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy]

"[In] the domain of economy, coercion has lead us to industrial servitude; in the domain of politics to the State ... [where] the nation ... becomes nothing but a mass of obedient subjects to a central authority." [Kropotkin, Anarchism]

The Anarchist FAQ is not a publication of infoshop.org, and neither the FAQ collective nor the writers on infoshop are unanimous enough in the realms of theory or history for it to make any sense at all to attribute opinions to infoshop.org as some sort of coherent corporate entity. Iain McKay has gone to considerable trouble and expense to research material for the FAQ. I can attest to the fact, since I've helped him track down some obscure sources. The FAQ is more thoroughly footnoted than most academic sources on anarchism. It contains some statements which could be contested, and it has a clear set of theses around which an impressive amount of evidence is arrayed. That's the academic standard: not that you have no axe to grind, but that you support your argument. The entry currently includes citations of Bryan Caplan and Plekhanov (Plekhanov!) criticizing elements of anarchist traditions. Surely these are precisely opponents of the schools they criticize. Fine. Keep 'em in there, as long as their bias is clearly noted. Libertatia 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Infinity0, AaronS, Sarge Baldy, VoluntarySlave support the use of the infoshop.org FAQ as a primary source as per the article.

Caveat: I only support it insofar as it is substantiated by secondary sources. --AaronS 16:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And by that, I mean that it can be used as a primary source in describing what anarchists think today, i.e. as representative of contemporary anarchists. But I also think that, because of its partisan nature, it should be complimented with secondary sources and other primary sources. --AaronS 20:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII says it shouldn't be used because they aren't qualified to have an opinion. :| Infinity0 ^talk 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem using it as a primary source. I oppose it as a secondary source. You still haven't figured out what the difference is. RJII 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're the one that has always had trouble distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. It's rather simple. To put it flat-footedly, primary sources are directly related to the events or people that they are describing. Secondary sources are usually not related directly in that way, and analyze and synthesize primary sources. The diary of a colonist serving in the Continental Army would be a primary source for information about the Continental Army, colonial America, and the American War of Independence, for instance. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States would then serve as a secondary source for these same events, because he is analyzing primary sources. --AaronS 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What a convoluted mess. The difference is very simple. I explain below. RJII 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I'd suggest that you try to be civil. --AaronS 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it a secondary source? They (infoshop.org) are the opponents. Infinity0 ^talk 19:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To use the infoshop FAQ as a primary source means that you're using it as evidence of what the position of the people at Infoshop is. To use it as a secondary source would mean relying on the Infoshop FAQ as a source for interpretation of primary sources. RJII 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is being used as evidence of what opponents of a-capitalism think. That's primary. Infinity0 ^talk 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Opponents of anarcho-capitalism in general? That would be original research. All you could say is that it's evidence of what the people at the top of the hierarchy at Infoshop.org think (the people who say submitted information has to pass through them first). But, even them, are these people at the top of that hierarchy notable? RJII 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is safe to say that Infoshop.org is representative of a good number of anarchists. --AaronS 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Remember, you provided a hit count of anarchist sites. Anarchism.net gets WAY more hits and that site recognizes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. BlackCrayon has the highest hit count, and it doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. If you want to do it like that, we could say "most" anarchists accept anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. RJII 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaken. Infoshop.org has the highest traffic ranking, meaning that it is more popular. The Geocities mirror of the FAQ has a high ranking, as well, and has an estimated daily reach of 100 million people. Now, Alexa and Google rankings only mean so much, of course. --AaronS 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a hit count. That was a traffic RANKING. Anarchism.net got a higher-number RANKING, meaning they are much more INSIGNIFICANT. Infoshop.org got the lowest-number ranking - they are the biggest anarchist website. Infinity0 ^talk 21:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the use of the Anarchist FAQ, both as a primary and as a secondary source (as appropriate, given the context), noting that, where citations are given, we have some responsibility to double-check them when possible. Libertatia 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well put. --AaronS 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, what's the issue here? Is it that there are no opponents of anarcho-capitalism who believe "that the relationship between workers and employers is a form of authority" and "that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) and that it is essential to anarchism for them to be abolished." or is it that the anarchist FAQ hosted by infoshop.org is a bad source for supporting an argument? Steve block talk 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me is about paying wages for labor. I'm not aware of any educated person that says paying someone for his labor is "coercive." Infinity is citing them as a source. I don't see the Infoshop FAQ saying that it is, and even it did say that it is, it wouldn't matter because it's not a credible source. The FAQ is put together vaguely similar to the way that Wikipedia puts an article together. In other words, a bunch of people who, for all we know, are unqualified to comment get together and contribute. But, for Infoshop, it's more hierarchical. There is a self-appointed authority at the top of the hierarchy who only lets submissions that he/they agree(s) with to be posted. But, as far as I know, that authority has no intellectual authority. What makes the people who run Inforshop a credible source worthy of citation? Someone from here can email them something to put in the FAQ and if they like it, they'll put it in. Then they can come back here and cite the FAQ. It's riduculous. The only way we could reasonably use the FAQ is a citation of what the people that run Infoshop.org think. Any interpretations or arguments made by those people are worthless, as far as a citation for an encyclopedia. RJII 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely worthless. They can serve as examples of what contemporary anarchists argue. --AaronS 02:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the most we can do is say that it is what the authority of Infoshop.org argues. But, who are those authorities? Why should anyone lend them credence? The website is notable, sure, but just because they get a lot of hits. So what? That doesn't mean the people hitting it agree with everything that's said in the FAQ. RJII 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the Anarchist FAQ collective and the Infoshop.org collective are not the same. This is public knowledge, readily accessible to anyone who bothers to look. The FAQ is a collectively authored monograph. It features extensive citation. It is no more partisan than sources, such as Martin's Men Against the State, which are frequently, and properly (if properly used), cited here.

But Infoshop is the one you're supposed to contact if you want to add to the FAQ: "If you want to get involved with the FAQ then contact us." The fact that it's partisan is not my complaint. My complaint is that whoever is in charge is not qualified to commment, and neither are those who contributed to it (as far as I can tell). Your comparison of the author(s) to James J. Martin brings up my point. James J. Martin had a PhD in History. What are the qualifications of the author(s) of the FAQ? RJII 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the argument about wages and coercion, search on "structural coercion" or "systemic coercion" for some clearly educated leftist stuff. But the argument is basic to all anti-capitalism. Concentrations of of the means of production in the hands of capitalists mean the wage relation is at times a choice of work for wages or starve. It's not the most nuanced of approaches, but it's common as can be. Libertatia 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But, that's not coercion, but exploitation. Coercion is "work for me or I'll kill you." Exploitation is "work for me for low wages or starve" --supposedly. The offer for employment at low wages is not coerced, but rather the employer is taking advantage of the jobless guy's desperation --wrongly taking advantage, supposedly. RJII 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The second; otherwise I have just lost all respect for RJII. Infinity0 ^talk 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm inclined to think. I have to say, I'm finding it hard to determine what the issue here is. The FAQ doesn't really appear to read as though it is opinion, but rather analysis. At the moment, I'm inclined to see it as a secondary source rather than a primary source, since there is no opinion inherently expressed. At the moment I can't see a case for utilising infoshop as a source rather than building the case from other sources. I'm going to ask a few other people to comment on this. Steve block talk 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they're arguing against anarcho-capitalism, using sources as references. I don't think it's an analysis of those writers. Infinity0 ^talk 22:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction:

As anarchist ideas seem so at odds with "common-sense" (such as "of course we need a state and capitalism") we need to indicate why anarchists think like they do. Unlike many political theories, anarchism rejects flip answers and instead bases its ideas and ideals in an in-depth analysis of society and humanity. In order to do both anarchism and the reader justice we have summarised our arguments as much as possible without making them simplistic. We know that it is a lengthy document and may put off the casual observer but its length is unavoidable.

Readers may consider our use of extensive quoting as being an example of a "quotation [being] a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself." (A.A. Milne) This is not the case of course. We have included extensive quotations by many anarchist figures for three reasons. Firstly, to indicate that we are not making up our claims of what certain anarchists thought or argued for. Secondly, and most importantly, it allows us to link the past voices of anarchism with its present adherents. And lastly, the quotes are used for their ability to convey ideas succinctly rather than as an appeal to "authority."

They quote to back up their own arguments, not as an analysis. Infinity0 ^talk 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The original context for much of the FAQ was debates between some of the folks who went on to write the FAQ and anarcho-capitalists such as Caplan. Much of the debate was historical, revolving around the precise theories and programs of the individualists and mutualists. The FAQ consequently ended up with two primary purposes. 1) It attempts to lay out, in fairly simple terms, "what anarchists believe," and what variations there are in those beliefs. The method is largely a synthesis of anarchist primary documents. The thesis advanced is that "anarcho-capitalists" are beyond the pale. (James J. Martin similarly ejects "Christian anarchists" as an oxymoron, even though one of the primary figures in his study (Greene) was a Christian mutualist throughout most of his life, and we don't dismiss Martin's work. We shouldn't dismiss Martin, even though some of his distortions must have been conscious. He simply can't have read the first edition of Mutual Banking and not known Greene's position, and he seems to have read through the issues of The Word, which includes Greene's late defense of Christianity.) 2) The first Appendix explicitly "exists for one reason, namely to explain why the the idea of "anarcho"-capitalism is a bogus one." That's not friendly, but it's also a perfectly appropriate scholarly enterprise. This section is straightforward textual criticism, based, once again, in mostly historical research, as the debates largely hinge on historical questions. And the proof is ultimately in the pudding, that is, in how well the sources address Caplan's arguments. Libertatia 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Right. It seems to me that whilst infoshop host the FAQ, they did not write it. Therefore, can we agree it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the site. It is also unclear that the source supports the allegation that wage slavery is coercive. However, would we agree it supports a statement that "Whilst anarcho-capitalists have argued that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist, some anarchists have countered this, offering that capitalism is a coercive system, and laboring for wages, or wage slavery, is a byproduct of that system."? Does the source support that? I believe it does, When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority and Thus the only "difference" between slavery and capitalist labour is the "mode of purchasing." The labour itself and its product in both cases is owned by the "great capitalist." Clearly this is a case of, to use Rothbard's words, during working hours the worker "has little or no right to self-ownership; his person and his produce are systematically expropriated by his master." Little wonder anarchists have tended to call wage labour by the more accurate term "wage slavery."[13]. Would we also agree that the citation can cite the Anarchist FAQ as hosted by infoshop.org, as a primary source for this opinion. Steve block talk 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading that quote regarding When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority, I believe that supports a statement that wage slavery is coercive. The opinion offered is that an offer for employment at low wages is a coercive power, since it comes from a source of power, in this case monetary advantage, and the exploitation of that advantage is here cited as being a source of coercive authority. Thoughts? Steve block talk 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority." The incoherence of that sentence is just indicative of the lack of qualifications that those who wrote the FAQ have --the FAQ was written by a bunch of internet-anarchist kids and it's not credible. Power exercised over one's self under capitalism is a source of coercive authority? What??? RJII 15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro comments and Voltairine's classification of schools

In the intro

1. the "first used against the working class sans-culottes during the French Revolution" has already been refuted by a citation showing it was used a couple centuries before then.
2. the citation for "the term is still used in a pejorative way" doesn't support what it purports to support. The citation shows that "anarchism" was used in a perjoritive way in the 1890s (the propaganda by deed period), not "still used." Today it is rarely if ever used that way, though "anarchy" (not "anarchism") is still used to mean disorder. So the whole first paragraph is garbage.
3. the article needs a nice tree diagram of the major schools. More fuel for the fire: Voltarine de Cleyre classified anarchists as communists, socialists, individualists, and mutualists.

"One of de Cleyre's best essays is "Anarchism" published in 1901. In it she defines anarchism as freedom from compulsion. She recognizes that an anarchist must adopt some view of economics. In this lovely essay, she describes the distinctive views of the four major economic subcategories of anarchists: communist, socialist, individualist, and mutualist and shows why each might have developed when and where it did. She argues that the particulars depend more on history and culture than abstract rational derivation. Individualism, for example, was a good fit in a society without a history of class conflict, where the worker of today could be the employer tomorrow, where the country's motto was "The Lord helps him who helps himself." De Cleyre saw that "there is nothing unanarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to." Like Tarrida, she encouraged tolerance among anarchists, even including the Christian anarchists."[14]

Note that she considers mutualists different from individualists, i.e. she didn't call American individualist anarchism "mutualism." She should know, since over her lifetime she converted from one to another form. Apparently to her European mutualism was quite a different animal than American individualism. Does anyone know where I can find this 1901 essay online? - Hogeye

Thanks for the points, we'll do something about it when the article gets unprotected. No, I don't know where to get it online, but if you have the exact text you can put it into google. Infinity0 ^talk 16:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have it. All I know of it is from the article linked above. Even the Spunk library doesn't have it, even though it is "one of de Cleyre's best essays." I did scan in the essay In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Wolff recently, and have put that up. - Hogeye

It doesn't seem to be online, but it is in the Presley and Sartwell anthology, Exquisite Rebel, and is probably in the other recent collections. There are about two paragraphs about mutualism. She presents Anarchist Socialism, Anarchist Communism and Individualist Anarchism, then largely ignores the first category (which she associates with John Turner), and then takes a fairly straightforward Proudhonian approach to Mutualism, saying "Truth lies not "between the two," [individualism and communism] but in a synthesis of the two opinions." Then she makes a distinction between individualism and mutualism in terms of their origins in rural (Warren) or urban (Tucker) environments. She attributes a "leaning towards a greater Communism" to Tucker.

De Cleyre's typology is good, as far as it goes, but obviously ideosyncratic. She follows the early Proudhon in seeing mutualism as a synthesis (rather than the later Proudhon who believes antinomies are not ultimately synthesized, and that tendencies must be balanced.) It is probably true that Tucker leaned towards a "greater Communism" than Warren, but that's a very relative statement. It does suggest that even as late as the turn of the century, the mid-19th century understanding of mutualism as synthesis or balance was still current. It also raises question whether Warren should be counted among the mutualists. "Cooperation without combination" is as different from "harmonizing property and communism" as Warren's prescriptive "cost principle" is from the "labor as regulator of value" position of Greene. Libertatia 21:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, with User:InfinityO. You're hilarious. :| Infinity0 ^talk 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

a) The previous posting only refrred to the use of such terms as anarchy and anarchic. However this article is about Anarchism. I think the information above far more shows how anarchism itself emerged inresponse to capitalism. During the English Revolution even anomic political currents presented their ideas in a religious terms. Even with the radical republicans that later emerged towards the end of the eighteenth century, who rejected Monarchism along with Newton's viewpoint as parallelling such hierarchical relations - such as John Toland. It would be useful to have a couple of pararaphs dealing with this process upto the birth of Anarchism in nineteenth century.Harrypotter 20:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

19th century definition of socialism, finally

Webster's dictionary from 19th century: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Albert R. Parsons, What is Anarchism? Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, as Defined by Some of its Apostles (Chicago, 1887) This explains why some of the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists" while at the same time supporting private property (including the means of production) and opposing collectivism. Anarcho-capitalism is also a form of socialism by that definition (as Hogeye and I have both pointed out, but we hadn't seen an actual dictionary definition, so we weren't able to prove it). RJII 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're drawing a conclusion that is only supported by one out-of-context quote. In the rest of that source, he goes on to elaborate on anarchism and socialism. Much of it appears to be similar to Marx and Engels. This is exactly the kind of original research of yours that I oppose. Instead of finding scholarly sources that agree with you, you dig for quotes (sometimes very much out of context) and then present your own syntheses. --AaronS 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Parson's was a Chcago communist anarchist. He's not talking about individualist anarchism. He probably didn't think the individualists were true anarchists, anyway. I'm not making the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of socialism in an article. I'm making it HERE. All I'm going to do is provide a 19th century dictionary definition of socialism. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that. RJII 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)